Why do climate-change true believers try to silence dissent, by using insulting terms like "deniers"?

Question

If their theories and belief systems are so valid, what are they scared of? Climate change zealots continually try to censor public discourse, by assaulting and insulting those who quite rightly question their appallingly dodgy methodology. e.g. analogising sceptics to Holocaust deniers, by using the term "deniers". Perhaps they need reminding that some better known sceptics include Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein.

Answer 1

Now you know why they say things like "the debates over".  They want to stifle further scientific research because it may cut into their perceived lead.

Answer 2

Sticking negative labels on people, who don't agree with us, is a tactic used by humans throughout history.

Governments, the elite, and powerful lobby groups who want a particular policy implemented without public dissent use the tactic of attacking any dissenters no matter how legitimate the grievances of those dissenters.

First line of attack is to discredit the first voices of dissent with negative labels. The more emotive the label the more likely it is to inflame certain sectors of society against the dissenters (with the aim of a domino effect).

Unless intelligent people speak up when they see such skull-duggery going on, the perpetrators get away with it. And it isn't long before all dissenters are silenced.

The most effective opposition against the 'labellers' is to form a strong group with some highly respected people who are in the public eye. (The general public is more likely to sit up and listen to the dissenting voices if they feel some level of trust and respect for the spokesperson.) With a good media strategy the group can then implement an action plan.

The group has to be committed to getting overwhelming public support for their views. Only then can a legitimate debate take place with those in power.

These are just some of my ideas. I'd need considerably more time to back them up with references.

Answer 3

It's hard to come up with a name for them that is acceptable in polite society.  Mainly they are people who like to come to the global warming sites on the internet and post their neolithic social and scientific ideas in an attempt to prevent discussion of Global Warming, but that's too long to use in a sentence.  It would benefit every one of them to go over to the Law Enforcement & Police section and endlessly post how law enforcement and police are a hoax, bad for the country and the planet, the invention of "liberal tards", Al Gore, and people "on the take" financially.  It is very important to also spend a lot of time explaining how much more you know about the subject than the Police Chiefs, forensic scientists and prosecuting attorneys, and how much smarter you are in general.  While you're at it don't forget to mention that Law Enforcement Believer is a perfectly acceptable term, while Law Enforcement Denier is obviously way out of line.

I'm sure that once you have done this, they will hoist you to their shoulders and parade you through every city and town in the land, singing your praises and calling you heroes, geniuses and saints, strewing palm fronds in your path, and slaughtering newborn lambs in awe and admiration  at your intellect, education, and social skills.

After that, please come back and give us a full report so we can adjust our behavior accordingly.

Answer 4

Why do people who deny that global warming is occurring use insulting labels like "true believers" and "zealots" and claiming that science is a "belief system"?

What would you like to be called, a "skeptic"?  Is that an accurate or honest moniker to adopt if you accept without question (without skepticism) the creative stories produced by people such as this?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t*t...

"sceptic. Someone undecided as to what is true and enquires after facts"

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sceptic

"Denier" is simply "one who denies", which is exactly what global warming deniers do,s the lavel seems merely accurate and descriptive.  Trying to play the "Holocaust" card is a cheap shot.  Typical diversionary tactic, since you have no science to discuss.

So where did the story that global warming deniers are like Holocaust deniers come from?  Steve Milloy himself:

"'Green-ness' has become the new moral high ground that few dare to challenge. Those that do are pilloried as 'skeptics' and likened to Holocaust deniers."

(He also claims that to call someone a skeptic is punishment?  Bizarre.)

So are you unsure that global warming isn't happening (a sceptic), or are you deny that it is happening, and rather than take cheap shots at people who you disagree with (while claiming to be a poor victim yourself), why not simply explain how would you like your position to be labelled?

Answer 5

Huh?

All I know is they are predicting a rise by 4 to 5 percent in the next 50 to 100 years if something isnt done in this window of 10 years NOW which will only halt the temperature rise to 1 degree if we DO enough to stop the present rate of ascention (of pollution).  Earth cannot sustain life as presently known if it rises to 4-6 degrees which it WILL if we don't curb our outputs.

Right now poor countries are starting what was equivalent to our INDUSTRIAL revolution of the 50s to 60s.  Countries like India now have CARS...Imagine these poor countries with no standards but MILLIONS of people, INDUSTRIALIZING and creating factories (we all love outsourcing labout to sweatshops right?) maybe even a billion or two people suddenly polluting as of NOW forward where they never did before.

It's not just us here but the world as a whole who plays a role in all this.

But hey, let's not call anyone a denier that all this is and will happen.  Wouldn't want to insult anyone's intelligence here.

Answer 6

Why is a very good question. The groups that accept the global warming philosophy as fact treat the issue almost like religion. They claim to be educated and open-minded but  resort to name calling and quickly dismiss any theories that are different than global warming doctrine. Their favorite choices of bullying include; name calling like ignorant and uneducated, comparing us to conspiracy theorists, claiming we don't understand science, saying we think the scientists are stupid or dishonest, comparing us to the people that persecuted science in the past, and showing us that certain business men and politicians have accepted AGW. Usually people of a scientific mind are more accepting and open minded. Sometimes people get wrapped up in an issue and it is all they can see. You see this with groups like PETA.  Animals become so important to some of its members that they bomb places that use animal testing. They are willing to put other people at risk because they are zealous for their cause. It is similar with some people and global warming.  They have accepted this theory as fact and it has become their religion. They immediately get angry at anyone that questions their “science” and will use any words or even try to bully them to their side of the debate.  It has become so bad that some skeptic scientists have received death threats.  Although I have to admit with the name calling us deniers are just as guilty by using words such as zealots, freaks, tree huggers and hippies.

Answer 7

Climate change is more emotion than logic and more politics than science.  

It's human nature that when people hear about a heinous crime, their sense of logic tends to get switched off and they believe that is no way that this could be wrong.  What crime could be more heinous than killing the Earth.  

They believe in their hearts that they are the good people and people who lack their faith are bad people.

Answer 8

This is a typical ploy used by anyone that fears close scrutiny of their beliefs. If they were to see that the facts may lead elsewhere, the reason for "being" would be shaken. Thus they attempt to scare off opposing views so they do not have to admit the cause is a false one.

Answer 9

They don't try to silence dissent.  But the division of global warming critics into "skeptics" and "deniers" is often useful.

It depends on what they say.  Many are reasonable "skeptics".   Sample argument.  "Global warming won't be as severe as predicted, because the sensitivity of climate to CO2 is less than the commonly accepted value".  

If their argument requires that most all  scientists be stupid or dishonest, they're deniers.  "how can anyone believe in global warming?" or "this is just a liberal scam" are typical arguments.  "appalingly dodgy methodolgy" is getting pretty close.  The National Academy of Sciences doesn't use appallingly dodgy methodology.  Here's what they have to say:

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change

Note that respectable sources use the terms, denial or denier.  For example:

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate."

By the way Galileo is an excellent example of how scientific consensus works.  And who the "skeptics' often are.

Once Galileo brought in the data (the phases of Venus) a scientific consensus rapidly developed that the Sun was the center of the Solar System.  So who persecuted Galileo?  Ignorant "skeptics" who denied the scientific evidence.

Stinky - I use businessmen and conservative politicians only to refute the nonsense claim that this is a "liberal" or "environmentalist" thing.  I think that's valid.

If people claim that this is a "hoax" or that there is "no factual basis" or that it's clearly just a natural cycle, they are explicitly saying that most all of the world's scientists are stupid or dishonest for saying otherwise.  Once again, it's fair to point that out.

And, refuting silly arguments with science and references is hardly "quickly dismissing them".  One does have to be brief here.