Do you agree with this definition of a global warming 'denier'?

Question

Most people object to being called 'deniers'. They would prefer to be called 'skeptics', but oftentimes that is an inaccuate label.

Note that 'denier' has absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust. A 'denier' is simply a person who denies reality.

How about this definition - a 'denier' is a person who continually rejects established scientific data and instead continually makes false and unsubstantiated claims (for example 'no warming since 1998' when the data clearly proves otherwise).

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

Can we agree on this definition? That way, if the 'skeptics' can provide solid scientific links (and I'm not talking about right-wing blogs, junkscience.com, or surfacestations.org, I'm talking scientific data), then they're don't qualify as 'deniers'. Sound fair?

Answer 1

Do you have a better term? I mean these guys sure aren't skeptical. Being skeptic means the one has an open mind, but the deniers, at least most of the ones that I've encountered, have completely thrown out years of scientific research and only believe that random opinion found in some random blog or opinion page, or are just regurgitating some misleading cherry picked bit of information that they heard some talking head say.

If these guys were "skeptical" then they would be just as skeptical of that random opinion and cherry picked data. They might start asking questions such as, "Well, what do the scientists say?" or "I wonder who is paying for that opinion?" or "CO2 gas really does absorb infrared radiation, right?"

A better term would probably be something like a "climate change action delayer". But this is just too bulky.

The case for anthropogenic global warming is more conclusive today, and the physical science basis for it is not that difficult to understand. The largest compilation of current research on climate change is found in the IPCC reports, and their latest one came out last year. Most of the deniers will dismiss the entire reports without even taking a cursory look.

Here is the best explanation that I've found on why the deniers continue to deny science:

<Quote>"The more I've listened to global warming deniers, the more I've realized that for most of them, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SCIENCE. These guys don't go five minutes without attacking Al Gore or comparing climate activists to socialists who want to destroy capitalism. Deniers are part of a political culture that frames the world in terms of left and right, so they've absorbed global warming into that broader paradigm of partisan politics."[1]<End quote>

Answer 2

Sites like junkscience.com or right wing sites simply cite information provided by skeptic scientists. You are a fool if you think these sites are the ones that conduct the studies and therefore the info that is on them is not legitimate. Also, the theory of AGW is still a theory, even you can admit to that, and all theories will be questioned to some degree.

Also, you don't even bother to look for or look at scientists  arguments against AGW. You simply say that they are a "minority" (ever since science became a democracy) and that there is a concesnsus and that is why you don't have to consider the other side of the issue.

Answer 3

I agree that to be a Denier, one has to be adimently against something that is going on. So Since there is sooo much data out there proving that global warming isn't even happening, that its not controlled or caused by man kind We would correctly have to say people that believe in it are either doomsayer dolts, or they are truth deniers.

Answer 4

Who are you to define anyone?  I would suggest you speak for yourself and define yourself to dfine others and speak for them is arrogance.  I would suggest you look up arrogance then look in the mirror.

Answer 5

Like greenhuddler.com or whatever is scientific data? That sounds like a LEFT-wing blog to me... how is that any better than a right-wing blog. Also, pretty much anything found online is questionable...

So no, I don't really agree. Maybe an 'alarmist' isn't an 'alarmist' if *they* provide scientific evidence that global warming is going to kill us all.  

Answer 6

yea i guess i'm a denier, if you call asking for more solid proof of a thing in stead of swallowing some line a politician is giving me.  

You really have to hand it to Gore here.  He gets everyone all rilled up on a subject and he claims both sides.  The earth is heating up cause of man and due to it heating up it will get colder.  so if you say hey its not as hot this year as last year, his little cronies go, see all that ice melted and its getting colder.  then he takes away any discussion on it by saying the debate of global warming is done.  And if you don't swallow his bull then your just in denial.

Answer 7

I can see why you would exclude 'surfacestations.org'.  What Anthony Watts & his cadre of volunteers have discovered with our monitoring stations, is pulling the rug from beneath the whole 'man-did-it' global warming argument.  There are a lot of NOAA bureaucrats and alarmists who will be looking for towels...... to wipe the egg off of their collective faces.

Nice try.... but no banana!

Answer 8

why "deny"? not like it has been established that global warming exists.

calling someone a denier of something is automatically assuming that whatever the case is, the answer is already established, and there are 0 loopholes whatsoever, and 0 room for error, when in all actuality, not 100% of everything HAS BEEN established, and when someone finds fault with a certain area of whatever the situation is, that person immediatly becomes a "DENIER" while those calling him or her the DENIER never take the time to look at their arguements and properly REFUTE them mind you

Answer 9

Firstly people who do not suport AGW are not denying reality, AGW is an un-proven theory, hence it is those that put it forwards as hard science are the ones that deny reality

I am happy to be called a skeptic as I am not gullible and do not accept what I am told as true.

If you need hard evidence you obviously have done little research into the subject, find the information for yourself as do others! I will get you started with some interesting links:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/commi...

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/...

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Hey-Nobe...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...

http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/P...

I suggest wathing following documentary aswell:

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_g...

Answer 10

Dana good points, I would have to say you are correct, it was also kind of 'PVB John' to make your "unsubstantiated claims" reference by bring up the silly OISM petition.

Or Nightwind who states 'Since there is sooo much data out there proving that global warming isn't even happening"

And then lists zero sources, that is typical a denier statement here.

The only references linking 'denier' to the Holocaust seems to come from deniers, in an attempt (I guess) to guilt people into not using it, I hadn't even thought of that till one of the 'deniers' here put it in a question, I use it related to denying the bleeding obvious, if they link it to the holocaust thats in their mind not mine.

Answer 11

true.  Global warming has been happening since the ice age.

  true or false?

Answer 12

No, since I believe people have the right to disagree with what the scientific community is trying to shove down their throats. A true denier is one that doesn't believe any change has happened at all and thinks that global climate change never happened and isn't happening now. The thing that you and others of your like have done is labeled everyone a denier that didn't believe as you believe.

Answer 13

No.

Do you agree that the definition of a believer should be ' a gullible person who can be easily mislead, is typically arrogant, and does not require any scientific evidence for their belief'?

Your own reference shows that you can't even interpret a simple picture.

By your own reference you prove that your so-called 'deniers' are correct!

Why would you do this?

Do you argue with yourself?

I suggest looking at the graph again and then delete your question before it is too late!

Answer 14

I rather be called a skeptic as well and i feel very hurt when someone calls me a denier. Skeptic Skeptic not denier, who do i deny?  

Answer 15

Ok chicken litttle. I can strech lies too but choose not to. So if you feel better by attempting to turn the word into a negitive conotation then do what you must. You are so clever.

Answer 16

That is pretty much it and I think perfectly fair (though I have also been using that distinction between denialist and skeptic for quite a long time so of course I would agree).

Although I would prefer to apply the term term skeptic to those who look at the evidence and base their beliefs on the evidence, that would mean of course that there are plenty of skeptics here but...

Answer 17

It froze last night in Wisconsin and Minnesotta and I heard we are going to have a real cold winter. does knowing this make me a denier or a skeptic.

Answer 18

Any right wing blog that provides links to scientific sources to back up their claims is as credible as realclimate blog you site.  Yes real climate is a blog with an agenda.  If they are seekers of truth they would not edit out comments that they do not like.  

Satellite data shows 1998 as the warmest year on record.  Saying that one temperature data set is more credible as another makes you the denier.  You are denying scientific data.

Believers who keep misrepresenting their hypothesis also makes them deishones.  From your link:  "A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade"  0.1 per decade for ten decades makes one degree, way below what the models are indicating.  The MET OFFICE temperature data for the last decade disproves and does not back your real hypothesis of catastrophic warming.

Answer 19

I think that eventually we will have fMRI scanning technology which will be able to conclusively prove a specific brain signiture of a denialist. The part of the brain which confabulates and blocks higher order thinking will light up like wildfire. The next step will be a portable fMRI sort of like a pacemaker for those inflicted with denialism. Everytime these brain signitures come up the device will deliver a painful electric shock until the ability to think honestly and rationally is developed. I fear that several people on this forum may not survive to the point of being cured, sadly.

Answer 20

I am not a denier,but know that you boys are in denial of reality,even though you spate that others were in denial.

The earth does not work as your modelers and theorists assume,did you ever invest in a theory? Or would you? Would your wife or mother approve of you investing all of the familys fortunes in a theoretical investment? Not likely.

But that is what has happened.,and you would deny that statement,does that put you in denial,I think so.

Global warming is the resultant of energetic flows coming into our sector and will abate,you do not even speak to the 11 year solar cycle that the astro idiots even get. We are in that period now,and have been experiencing a 1050 periodicity event for many years now that has the magma hotter than other non energetic events periods.

I suspect you probably donated to the (I think the Finnish Idiots) that bought  a mile long solar blanket to stop their glacier from melting.

You actually believe folks that masquerade as scientists and even went to or are a provider of the play that has all of you boys in a special box that people much smarter than you put you in,and you actually probably like it,we did make it comfy for ya.

But your kind of folks also believe that that new super collider is going to prove the "Big Bang" theory and I might just laugh and laugh if it and your goofy Global Warming  and colliding didnt deplete economies.

And would you Jet Set if invited to a Global Warming meeting that "They" hold in just the right seasonal vacation spots? And you still think you have not been hustled.

I suggest you ask for your money back,Master Scientist.

Answer 21

The 'skeptics' haven't done a very good job of backing up their views.

Their data flat out sucks compared to the data of the 'people crying wolf', from what I've seen.

Yes, I agree with you.

Answer 22

Data?...like computer data based on a computer model?  I suppose you never bother to find out where the data actually comes from or how reliable the data is or how it is manipulated in the computer model to serve a political purpose.

NOW HEAR THIS: brought to you by the same folks who brought you a geocentric universe, a flat earth, and burning women at the stake for witchcraft....I present...GLOBAL WARMING!

I believe it was 33,000 accredited U.S. scientists who recently signed a petition refuting "global warming"....how's that for data?

  

Answer 23

It sounds like you have got yourself confused again.

Your definition sounds like it describes a 'believer' to me.

Since I have enough understanding of basic science and can distinguish between science fact and science fiction, I do not consider myself to be either a 'skeptic' or a 'denier'.

You can give us any label you like as far as I am concerned.

Since we know who's who.

Perhaps you will understand in a few years if you ever get a job and have to deal with the real world.

Youth and gullibility go hand in hand.

Answer 24

I'm not sure what exactly I am supposed to be in denial about . Maybe the fact that no greenhouse warming can be found in the lower troposphere where it should be ? Or , is it the fact that Co2 in the past has never been a major driver of temperature . Every temperature reconstruction rules out Co2  and a true consensus has been formed on this in the Scientific community . Perhaps you are the real denier here .