The public debate over how to address climate change has been hindered in no small part by the media’s refusal to properly identify climate deniers, according to an open letter penned by fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry titled “Deniers are not Skeptics.”

Now, campaign group Forecast the Facts is making an open appeal to the media to accurately label climate deniers, enabling supporters of the CSI effort to co-sign the letter, which so far has garnered over 20,000 signatures.

The open letter, released last month, was signed by nearly 50 scientists and skeptics, including physicist Mark Boslough, science writer Ann Druyan, and Bill Nye the Science Guy, who say that public understanding of global warming science has been “confused” because of the misuse of the term “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,” they wrote. “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.”

The letter singles out Republican Senator James Inhofe, the new Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee even though he once infamously called global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” He believes climate change is impossible because “God’s still up there.”

Sen. Inhofe is the type of climate change denier who has repeatedly benefited from being characterized as a “skeptic” in mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and NPR. You can read the full letter below.

Forecast the Facts picked up where the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry left off, inviting its supporters and anyone else concerned about the state of the climate debate to publicly co-sign the letter to the media, “Climate deniers are not skeptics.”

Of course, the fact that climate denial is regularly conflated with skepticism is no accident, as has been documented elsewhere, perhaps most notably in Erik Conway and Naomi Oreskes’ must-read book Merchants of Doubt, which examines industry-funded campaigns to mislead the public on issues ranging from tobacco smoke to acid rain and global warming in the service of free market fundamentalism.

By cloaking their anti-scientific arguments in the mantle of skepticism rather than denialism, climate deniers are simply taking a page from the Big Tobacco playbook. Isn't it time the media stop falling for it all over again?

Here’s the full open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry:

Deniers are not Skeptics

December 5, 2014

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 priorirejection 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.

Mark Boslough, Physicist

David Morrison, Director of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, at the SETI Institute

Bill Nye, CEO the Planetary Society

Ann Druyan, Writer/producer; CEO, Cosmos Studios

Ken Frazier, Editor, Skeptical Inquirer

Barry Karr, Exec Director, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Amardeo Sarma, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Executive Council, Chairman GWUP (Germany)

Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Ronald A. Lindsay, President & CEO Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Center for Inquiry

Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University

Christopher C. French, Dept of Psychology, Goldsmiths University of London

Daniel C. Dennett, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University

Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy at CUNY-City College

Douglas Hofstadter, Director, The Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University

Stephen Barrett, Co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch

Scott O. Lilienfeld, Professor, Department of Psychology, Emory University

Terence Hines, Dept of Psychology, Pace University

James Randi, President James Randi Educational Foundation

Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer and Director of the Center for SETI Research

Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

Henri Broch, Physicist, Emeritus, University Nice Sophia Antipolis, France

Eugenie C. Scott, Chair, Advisory Council, National Center for Science Education

Edzard Ernst, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, University of Exeter, UK

Indre Viskontas, Cognitive Neuroscientist, Host Inquiring Minds Podcast

David J. Helfand, Professor of Astronomy, Columbia University

Mario Mendez-Acosta, Journalist, Science Writer, Mexico City

Cornelis de Jager, Astrophysicist, Past President, International Council for Science

Sanal Edamaruku, President, Rationalist International

Loren Pankratz, Psychologist, Portland VA Medical Center, Retired

Sandra Blakeslee, Science Writer

Benjamin Radford, Deputy Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine

David Thomas, Physicist and Mathematician

Stuart D. Jordan, NASA Astrophysicist, Emeritus

David H. Gorski, Cancer Surgeon, Wayne State University School of Medicine

Anthony R. Pratkanis, Professor of Psychology, UC @Santa Cruz

Jan Willem Nienhuys, Mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands

Susan Blackmore, Psychologist, Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth

Ken Feder, Anthropology, Central Connecticut State University

Jill Tarter, Bernard M. Oliver Chair, SETI Institute

Richard Saunders, JREF Million Dollar Challenge Committee, Producer – The Skeptic Zone Podcast

Jay Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy, Williams College

Lawrence M. Krauss, Director, The ASU Origins Project, Arizona State University

Barbara Forrest, Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University

Kimball Atwood, Physician, Newton, MA

James Alcock, Psychologist, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada

Massimo Polidoro, Science writer, author, Executive Director CICAP, Italy

E.C. Krupp, Director, Griffith Observatory

Dick Smith, Film Producer, Publisher, Australia

CSI Consultants

Luis Alfonso Gámez, journalist, the Magonia blog, Spain

Felix Ares de Blas, Professor of Computer Science, Univ. of Basque, Spain

Image Credit: alphaspirit / ShutterStock.com

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This post originally appeared on MikeDeSouza.com and is republished here with permission.

Weather forecasters at Environment Canada aren’t supposed to discuss climate change in public, says a Canadian government spokesman.

Environment Canada made the comments in response to e-mailed questions about its communications policy.

The department defended its policy by suggesting that Environment Canada meteorologists — among the most widely quoted group of government experts in media reports and broadcasts — weren’t qualified to answer questions about climate change.

“Environment Canada scientists speak to their area of expertise,” said spokesman Mark Johnson in an e-mail. “For example, our Weather Preparedness Meteorologists are experts in their field of severe weather and speak to this subject. Questions about climate change or long-term trends would be directed to a climatologist or other applicable authority.”

Environment Canada estimates that nearly half of all the calls it takes from journalists are related to the weather. Its meteorologists also offer a 24-hour media hotline that, unlike most government scientists, allows them to take calls directly from journalists, without seeking permission for granting an interview.

But the department’s communications protocol prevents the meteorologists from drawing links to changing climate patterns following extreme weather events such as severe flooding in southern Alberta or a massive wildfire in Northern Quebec in the summer of 2013.

Johnson said that all public servants must adhere to a government-wide communications protocol that was introduced in August 2006, a few months after Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative party was first elected to form a government. Johnson also said that Environment Canada hasn’t received any feedback about its restrictions on meteorologists or wasn’t aware about any concerns.

Meantime, the department has touted job satisfaction among its employees, by posting some of its own interviews with staff on its website.

New survey indicates scientists afraid of speaking out

In contrast, some recently released quotes from a union-sponsored survey by Environics Research show the opposite, instead demonstrating fears among scientists about speaking out.

“With meteorology we are in a somewhat unique position in that our availability to the media is relatively unrestricted,” one government employee told the survey. “We do have to be careful what we say and keep it to the weather however. I outright refuse to answer climate questions, it is an issue fraught with too many traps. Could be career limiting.”

The quote was among dozens of first-hand accounts from federal scientists who expressed frustration about what they described as political interference in research based on the ideological views of Prime Minister Harper’s government.

The quotes, released by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, include references to “Orwellian” practices and descriptions of Canada as a “Banana Republic.” The union didn’t release the names of employees in order to protect their identities.

Many Canadian scientists from universities have alleged that the Harper government is muzzling public servants who do research on air pollution, water pollution or climate change that contradicts efforts to support growth in the oil and gas industry, which can contribute to these environmental problems.

Several cases of alleged muzzling have surfaced in recent years, including an internal Environment Canada analysis that found scientists felt muzzled and had observed an 80 per cent drop in media coverage of climate change issues, due to new restrictive communications policies introduced in 2007 that required scientists to obtain management approval before giving interviews about their research. But the government has denied it was trying to suppress scientific evidence.

Some of the employees quoted in the union survey slammed the Harper government for damaging the scientific credibility of their departments, including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Health Canada.

“I think it is unbelievable that an organization that used to be looked up to for its climate records and the like in the past is now laughed upon due to its lack of resources and quality control,” one scientist told the union.

Weather forecasters can play key role informing public

Catherine Potvin, a biologist and Canada Research Chair on Climate Change Mitigation and Tropical Forests at McGill University, said that all weather forecasters, including those in the media, could play a role in helping the public understand what’s happening with unusual weather patterns.

“I think it’s good if scientists speak about what they know about,” said Potvin in an interview, after delivering a presentation Monday at the “Genomes to Biomes” science conference in Montreal.

“I don’t necessarily agree (with) the government trying to shut down these very capable scientists from talking. It’s a loss of expertise for the general public.”

The quotes from government scientists were released in support of the union’s internal investigation into allegations of muzzling of federal scientists. Its survey found that 90 per cent of federal scientists and professionals felt they couldn’t speak freely in public about their work and that 24 per cent had been asked to exclude or alter information for non-scientific reasons.

The government, in response, has touted an OECD ranking that places Canada first among G7 countries for research and development in colleges, universities and other institutes. This ranking also showed that Canada had reduced the percentage of federal spending on government research and science in recent years, that it was below the OECD average and was proportionately spending less than half as much as the United States in terms of the size of overall economic output or GDP.

Potvin urged scientists at the Montreal conference to inform all politicians about the evidence to improve Canada’s climate change policies in the 2015 federal election.

“We have a responsibility to say (to all politicians) that they’re making a mistake by not listening to us, because all of the research and all of the evidence is pointing to that,” said Potvin, who also worked as a negotiator for Panama at international climate change negotiations. “I did my PhD on climate change in the 1980s and ever since then I’ve read all of the climate models…(and for) all of these impacts that were being predicted in 1985, we see them now.”

The union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, has estimated that the Canadian government is cutting about $2.6 billion and nearly 5,000 jobs from science-based departments between 2013 and 2016.

“I’m probably quitting. Harper wins": scientist

Among some of the other quotes released by the union:

– A scientist with 30 years of experience in government said that federal labs used to be well-equipped and funded, but are now often being run by economists without scientific expertise, who focus on industry needs: “The mood has changed dramatically, we don’t appear to be concerned with public good. Rather we must do what industry wants us to do. In addition travel is impossible and equipment is old and labs look like some that I’ve seen in the developing world.”

– A scientist said the Conservative government is ready to silence evidence when the “facts play against their economic agenda: Two examples: the environmental damage and pollution caused by the exploitation of the tar sands and the serious impact of chemical pollution on the health of the population living in and around Sarnia.”

– A scientist who works on environmental assessments of industrial projects — specializing in waste, water, and species at risk – said his or her role as an environmental steward was silenced: “We are tasked with work that we ethically do not agree with and must support. If we do not, they simply bring in project people who are non scientists who will write what senior management wants to hear. I am over worked, disrespected, undervalued, and I hate every day of my job where I used to love coming to work.”

– A scientist said he or she has given up on giving interviews and now refers journalists to NGOs for comment because he or she feels it’s too much of a burden to go through all the steps of the approval process for granting an interview — a process that lasts several days if not more than a week.

– A research scientist said management responds negatively to “potentially significant data” and asks him or her to downplay findings, while discouraging consultation with the academic world.

– Another scientist said the government is “very subtly manipulating scientific information.” One example is that the minister wouldn’t approve a publication and instead asks questions and provokes delays until that publication is outdated: “Since the current government came into office, the words ‘climate change’ started to disappear from the titles of divisions and subdivisions of Environment Canada.”

– Several scientists said they were giving up and leaving government, including one who said: “I’m probably quitting. Harper wins.”

Image: Weathergirl goes rogue via Deep Rogue Ram

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.