Naomi Oreskes, a Lightning Rod in a Changing Climate
This is what we'd call a "feature article" back in journalism class, as differentiated from a "news article," or, with a slightly disdainful crinkling of the nose, an "editorial." It's not "true" journalism, but it's closer to journalism than an opinion piece. Justin Gillis, the author, is a journalist, a news reporter focused on environmental stories.
I've been following climate science since the late 80s, watching the evolution of its coverage in the popular press from curiosity to mainstream scientific consensus and the reactionary conspiracy theories spawned by that consensus.
I've taken to substituting the term "naysayer" for "denialist" because of the voiced sensibilities of those who see echoes of "Holocaust denialism" in the term. The use here, in the NYTimes, however, has made me pause and reconsider. The word "denialist" shows up 43 times in a search among all articles from 1851, but the oldest reference dates merely to 2000 in a reference to H.I.V. ''denialists." It's clear though that in the past few years, its reference to climate skeptics has become mainstream. So it's time now to stop appeasing the recalcitrant. They are denialists, and if the term offends them, that's the price they pay.
Some truths should hurt.
Formally, she is a historian of science. Informally, this diminutive woman has become a boxer, throwing herself into a messy public arena that many career-minded climate scientists try to avoid.
She helps raise money to defend researchers targeted for criticism by climate change denialists. She has become a heroine to activist college students, supporting their demand that universities and other institutions divest from fossil fuels. Climatologists, though often reluctant themselves to get into fights, have showered her with praise for being willing to do it.
She helps raise money to defend researchers targeted for criticism by climate change denialists. She has become a heroine to activist college students, supporting their demand that universities and other institutions divest from fossil fuels. Climatologists, though often reluctant themselves to get into fights, have showered her with praise for being willing to do it.
This is what we'd call a "feature article" back in journalism class, as differentiated from a "news article," or, with a slightly disdainful crinkling of the nose, an "editorial." It's not "true" journalism, but it's closer to journalism than an opinion piece. Justin Gillis, the author, is a journalist, a news reporter focused on environmental stories.
I've been following climate science since the late 80s, watching the evolution of its coverage in the popular press from curiosity to mainstream scientific consensus and the reactionary conspiracy theories spawned by that consensus.
I've taken to substituting the term "naysayer" for "denialist" because of the voiced sensibilities of those who see echoes of "Holocaust denialism" in the term. The use here, in the NYTimes, however, has made me pause and reconsider. The word "denialist" shows up 43 times in a search among all articles from 1851, but the oldest reference dates merely to 2000 in a reference to H.I.V. ''denialists." It's clear though that in the past few years, its reference to climate skeptics has become mainstream. So it's time now to stop appeasing the recalcitrant. They are denialists, and if the term offends them, that's the price they pay.
Some truths should hurt.
Comment