Why do people call others who question GW being caused by human production of CO2, "global warming deniers"?

Question

Doubting controversial (and changing) scientific claims, should never be compared to the Holocaust, should it?

Answer 1

GLOBAL WARMING IS'NT CAUSED BY ANYTHING MAN MADE. http://www.socyberty.com/Activism/First-...  HAVE A NICE DAY.

Answer 2

Its just a ploy, calling people names validates their point of view.  It no different then calling those who believe alarmist just trying to validate their side of the debate.

(edit) comparing those who deny global warming to those who deny the holocaust is pathetic.

Answer 3

Like most negative classifications, they come from those who are on the other side of the argument. It is designed to marginalize them and censor their ideas.

Like someone had mentioned, AGW proponents are often referred to as "alarmists" which brings with it a negative connotation.

"I am a "Skeptic".

Science and skepticism go hand in hand. or at least it should.

Many in the scientific community, for example were skeptical of Baade and Zwikys proposal of neutron degeneracy. They were "politely dismissed". However in 1967, we found...tah da...a pulsar which confirmed their theory.

I am skeptical about the importance and influence of CO2 in altering the Earth's climate. I also know that the holocaust DID indeed happen, and being an astronomer, I also believe the Earth to be a sphere. However some who are very political and emotional on the subject would have you believe I am a flat Earther"who denies the holocaust.

I happen to believe that solar cycles and other natural factors of this HUGE planet (compared to us) has more direct impact than a minor greenhouse gas. (An idea that is agreesivly dismissed today, however data looks convincing.)

I do, on the other hand believe that polluting is a bad thing, and none of us "deniers" want to drink dirty water or breath dirty air either. I certainly do not believe that living like a cave man and having my rear taxed off will solve anything. But if you want to, go ahead.

For the most part the issue has left science and entered politics. Most of the "solutions" involve some form of global socialism, more government, and less freedom for individuals. Well. That alone kinda grates my libertarian tendancys. But...thats just me.

Answer 4

Being a AGW denier has nothing to do with the holocaust. It means you deny the science of CO2 forcing.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/featur...

Denial comes from your beliefs...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0103/p09s0...

Answer 5

It's just politics. I believe the term the AGW denier camp refers to the 'Al Gore' camp is 'alarmists', and Al Gore being the chief head alarmist.

Not sure if there is a name for the in-betweeners/on-the-fencers (maybe one of those will do, lol).

Oh, I forgot... 'tree-hugging liberals'... that's another one, I'm sure the list is long.

But both the terms 'deniers' and 'alarmists' are pretty much fair in my opinion, though I think neither party likely much cares to be referred to labels like these.

[Edit]

To extend on that maybe… I think too, because Global Warming is an established scientific 'theory' which is accepted and supported by leading scientific organizations including the official group designated to address the issues surrounding climate change for the entire globe, the IPCC (deniers hate the IPCC as much as they do Al Gore)… even though it is being challenged and likely will continue to be for some time (which is fine by me, I hope it will come out someday that this isn’t real, the predictions aren’t real and we aren’t really making it worse)… Because... it is more or less established firmly as a scientific theory… and because what that means is very disturbing in many ways to those who support the theory of global warming, which is interestingly, now as you obviously are aware, isolated simply as AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) are so shocked by this, they feel they must do everything possible to change it, get the word out, etc. ...The result is what people easily can call ‘alarmism’.

And from another perspective, because it is established as scientific theory, supported by most, if not all major scientific organizations (honestly, I’m not making that up. The last major scientific organizations, American Geophysical Union (AGU) [1] and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) [2], the latter for years having been the most vocally in opposition of GW in general (which if you look at the name, it’s plain to see why), now pretty much have all come to the official position that Global Warming and AGW can no longer simply be dismissed. Note – the AAPG still hangs on to the position that we can’t rule out that human activities is actually having as much impact as the IPCC is reporting, etc. or that the IPCC official projections are in any way accurate... but aside from that, pretty much all the other organizations make it clear which way they lean these days in their official statements on climate change (all this can be found here [3]). The point being… at this stage… people who are adamant about going against the grain of mainstream science are simply known as ‘deniers’.

The deniers position on the other hand, is that this is still under debate, the earth takes care of itself as it has been for millions of years, humans have no effect on climate and it is arrogant for us to think we do (according to Tom DeLay, former House Majority Leader), and many in this group still believe that global warming is something which is completely fabricated (a hoax, lie or conspiracy) which was the accusation made by Senator James Inhoffe (considered the eight most conservative senator), who until just recently, was chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for the Bush Administration and who repeatedly claimed that “global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”. Inhoffe, DeLay and others, remain strong critics of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities.

Whether it is coming from Al Gore or Inhoffe... having outspoken powerful political figures in such high ranking positions is what continues to fuel the 'debate'.

Deniers feel that Alarmists are blowing everything out of proportion and this upsets them greatly because they feel their ridiculousness is causing policy changes that they believe will hurt the economy. Many deniers believe it is politically motivated and coming from the left and from super environmentalists and liberal media.

Alarmists feel that Deniers are stubborn, have their ‘heads in the sand’ and are being brainwashed by Fox News Channel, junkscience.com and by the many ‘think tanks’ (i.e. CEI [4], George C Marshall Institute) which have strong ties to ExxonMobil, the world’s most profitable corporation for several years in a row.

Whenever the dust settles, it seems it is a problem whichever way it falls. Either there is a mega world-wide conspiracy, and once it is found out – the world’s governments and Science communities will come apart at the seams… or it’s true, billions of people burning fossil fuels turns out, turns out really isn't a good thing beyond your basic pollution, it is setting off a chain reaction which ultimately will amplify the temperature on the planet with potentially devastating results to our biospherem, etc.

Personally… I think it is just best that use this time to reduce pollution, which we should do anyway, and find better, cleaner alternative energies and technologies. Regardless of what the case ‘may’ be.

As for the "holocaust deniers" part of your question... I don't think that's the same.  Holocaust deniers are idiots, whereas, with regard to AGW, at least seemingly 'intelligent' people are on both sides of the issue.

Answer 6

I think the term is used in analogy to those who deny the holocaust. The idea is that global warming like the holocaust is now so well documented as to be not something that someone would dispute unless they have a hidden agenda. For holocaust denial, the agenda is anti-semitism; for GW deniers, it's often(not always) being a financial beneficiary of fossil fuel industry (employee, stockholder, etc.).

The question is: could anyone rationally and without hsuch a hidden agenda say that there is no human-caused global warming? I guess it's possible but every year the data gets more convincing and depressing.

Answer 7

it refers to them being 'in denial' about the real situation, this is a psychological term for one of the phases people go through when presented with unpalatable news. there are 7 i think;  lisa explained them on the simpsons once, but i can only remember denial, anger, depression and acceptance.

Answer 8

Why do you assume it has something to do with the Holocaust?  It doesn't.

A person in denial is a denier.  You can be in denial about anything - alcoholism, the Holocaust, global warming, whatever.  Sure there are people in denial about the Holocaust and about global warming, but you're the one making the connection, not those calling you a denier.

Not everyone who questions global warming is a denier.  Some people are simply ignorant of the scientific evidence:

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

Some people are aware of the evidence and yet continue to deny the scientific reality of the situation.  By definition they are 'deniers'.

Answer 9

Widget: very well put.

As you said, framing a theory, even a well-founded one, in the context of the Holocaust is truly obscene. It does NOT help to solidify the argument or the evidence in favor of AGW. it just reveals these people as ignorant.

Answer 10

global warming was happening by itself but we speaded up global warming

Answer 11

It depends on their actions.

Discussing scientific issues that are actually in controversy is a trait of "skeptics".  There can be a reasonable conversation.

Saying ridiculous things like "warming ended in 1998" or "18,000 scientists disagree" or "scientists are all lying to get grant money" marks a denier.  You can no more have a discussion with them than with a New Earth Creationist, who, when faced with any scientific evidence at all, simply says "God did that to test our faith".

It's a useful distinction.

Answer 12

Because you are basically just denying scientific fact.

Answer 13

I find this odd also. I went to purchase a book at the local library and Al Gores "An Inconvenient Truth" was labeled as Non-Fiction while a book written discouraging the theory of global warming was labeled fiction. I do not beleive in global warming because of evidence I read and the fact that the average temperature in 2008 was 1 degree less than the average temperate in 2007, according to my dad. Anyway I think it's called the global warming THEORY and has not been proven.

Answer 14

Norman got the denier part right.  It is a despicable attempt to associate those that doubt their conclusions with those that doubt the Holocaust.  I doubt their conclusions because it is based on their politics and not on a reasonable review of scientific evidence and potential benefits as well as harm.  Their belief that the human input to warming is necessarily harmful or something that is catastrophic and demands immediate attention and changing of our way of life is what is "denied" by me.  Their assurance that they actually can predict the future is what is "denied" by me.  Their assurance that it won't cost us anything to comply is what is denied by me.  Their claim that it isn't about politics is what is "denied" by me.  It is all about politics.

Answer 15

Personally, I generally prefer the term "doubters" to "deniers" because of the Holocaust issue.  But the term "denier" actually is the more accurate description for some and shouldn't be removed from our vocabulary.  It means "One that denies: a denier of harsh realities" and global warming is a harsh reality.

But don't forget how often the term "alarmist" (or worse) is used against anyone who tries to explain the actual science.  Of course, since the science actually demonstrates an alarming condition, then I guess I should consider that term a compliment (sort of Paul Revere like thing).

Answer 16

"Doubting controversial (and changing) scientific claims, should never be compared to the Holocaust, should it?"

Norman raises a good point. We are called deniers in the same context as people who deny the holocaust. This  implies that we are denying global warming in the face of factual evidence as was the case with people who deny the factual historical evidence of the holocaust.

It's a way to allow Green Fascists to say that our views are not based on observable evidence. It further implies that their statements of global warming are based on facts.

Its not comparing the doubting of controversial (and changing) scientific claims with doubting the Holocaust. Its just using words that have an emotional tag associated with them.  Kinda sorta like my use of the phrase Green 'fascist'.

Answer 17

I don't think many people question that the world's temperature is increasing.  That's scientifically proven.  But the term "Global Warming" has become shorthand for that increase in temperature *as caused by humans*.  People who don't believe humans are the main cause are styled as "Global Warming deniers" because they don't believe in the concept of that name,  even though they would probably agree that the world is getting hotter.

It's a bit of confusion because Global Warming means something slightly different than just the mere warming of the globe.  It carries implications of cause, which the deniers don't ascribe to.