Why do denialist deniers deny denying their denialist denial of their denials? Is it because they're deniers?

Question

If I keep calling skeptics deniers, will that convince anyone to accept AGW?

Answer 1

I think it gives them a sense of purpose, probably lots of students and young people who have yet to start contributing to society looking for a purpose.  When they mature a bit, most of them will question their faith.

Actually they should call themselves deniers for denying science.  Environmental alarmism is about sensoring science to the point where it can be made to support anything.

Answer 2

Well, I think too much is made of the 'denial' label...the persons so labeled don't like it because of the negative implications a la 'holocaust deniers' and so on though, so a line of demarcation between skeptics and deniers is being drawn to try to accomodate what has become politically incorrect to the people who don't believe in GW/AGW, at least here at YA.  Heh-when the shoe is on the other foot, 'PC' doesn't seem like such a bad thing, eh?

Anyway, that line of demarcation between skeptics and deniers is a little unclear, but 'skepticism' seems to have come to denote more of an open mind and scientific orientation than does denial.  And in general lexicon, the idea of 'healthy skepticism' is common in general society, as it is in scientific terms of examining the data and research in terms of validating or disproving a theory.

Now, understanding that I am not an expert by any means, nor do I have an emotional stake in the 'denier' vs. 'skeptic' debate, here's what I have gathered via a little scenario-and please keep in mind that I'm not debating the issues discussed in the scenario itself, I am only using it as an example:

Let's say that someone says "ice mass is increasing and (these charts) show it."

Someone else responds, "That chart demonstrates ice cover, not total mass, which IS decreasing according to (this information.)

Then the first person comes back with, "OK, if that is factual, then you have to look at the increased volcanic actitivity beneath major parts of the ice pack as the cause rather than GW/AGW, and here is the (information) that shows that.

Then the second person responds with "That may be true, but increasing volcanic activity itself is a function of GW/AGW according to..."

And at that point, the discussion can continue with people disagreeing about points such as whether AGW is affecting volcanic activity.  This is what I would call skepticism-and would consider healthy skepticism at that.

Now let's look at the denial scenario; let's say someone posts the same  initial comment and receives the same initial response:

Let's say that someone says "ice mass is increasing and (these charts) show it."

Someone else responds, "That chart demonstrates ice cover, not total mass, which IS decreasing according to (this information.)

THEN the first person replies, "Global warming is a huge scam and consensus is not science," and then the next day or week goes on to post the same comment misinterpreting a chart that shows ice cover as ice mass, maybe worded a little differently.  THAT person is a denier.

Unfortunately, the denier scenario is far more common here at YA than the skeptic scenario; debate is left unsettled on various points as the argument heads off on an unrelated tangent or loses its focus, and then sooner or later starts all over again without ever getting resolved so things can move on.  Or, rather than addressing issues directly, a question-such as this one-is worded in such a way as to conform with what is considered clever according to the freshly lowered standards of the internet so that the point of the question has to be deciphered.  While the question may be a very valid one and germane to the conversation overall, it doesn't really advance the debate unless someone cares to try to interpret the obtuse intentions of the asker.

Me, I'm just killing time while some glue dries, so I have the time to try to figure out just what the heck you are talking about.  The short answer to your first question is the reason deniers deny denying etc etc is because they think the label makes them sound like n***s.  The answer to your second question is, no thoughtful individual will accept AGW only on the basis of a label that is applied to people who do not believe in GW/AGW.

I hope this clarifies your confusion and will help you pose your further questions in a more cogent and wittier way.

Answer 3

Is your question,"Why do we use the term deniers?"

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 4

Since I don't quite understand the first part of the question, I'll just answer the second part of the question.

Many people here refuse to even consider the science involved in the idea of AGW.  Those people should not be called skeptics.  A skeptic is a person who is full of doubt but not closed-minded.

We use the word "denier" because we consider it more accurate than "skeptic" in certain contexts.  It is not to convince anyone of anything.

Answer 5

I don't like spam!!

Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam...

Have you got anything without spam?

Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

I don't want ANY spam!

Answer your question?

Answer 6

I deny that I am a denier and deny that my denialist ways deny the existence of any deniers in their denialist ways as well.  Um......no.   Keep on denying! I think.