Why do people who choose to believe in global warming call those who don't "deniers"?

Question

Isn't it a tad arrogant to assert that you right about something and anyone who doesn't agree is labelled with something negative and pejorative like "denier"? Sounds like new labour thought police tactics to me........

Answer 1

A denier is anyone who is too willfully ignorant to learn the truth, or even to want to. Someone who thinks global warming isn't happening is a denier in my book, of the same intellectual class as a creationist or a flat-earther.

Someone who thinks global warming is happening, but humans have nothing to do with it, is a skeptic. But only slightly less ignorant.

Answer 2

You are EXACTLY correct. Thought police tactics and censorship is routine among the "global warming" supporters. Here's a little support for that:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pa...

Answer 3

Oh, there obviously isn't anything linguistically or grammatically offensive in the term, nor is it arrogant to call someone a 'denier.'  It is simply an accurate description of their position, that global warming is NOT occurring and/or mankind is not responsible for it in any way.  Some people deny it.  They are deniers.

But you know, it's like any label-people object to being labeled, especially when it takes on a negative connotation thanks to the 'holocaust deniers' or people who use the term in an apparently provocative way, intentional or not.  But there is nothing intrinsically negative about the word 'deny' or any of it's derivatives.

It is interesting though, how some people who don't hesitate to call other folks names and insult them in all sorts of ways  become PC police when terms start to offend them personally.  However, I don't see any reason not to accomodate them, and think we ought to call skeptics skeptics and deniers 'Pop Tarts.'  Pop Tarts aren't offensive, are they?  Hmmm...tarts can be.  How about 'batteries?'  Batteries isn't offensive.

Pencils?

Air Chucks?

Ooh...ooh.  Billard Tables.  From here on out, I pledge I will address people who deny that GW/AGW is occurring as 'Billard Tables.'

Answer 4

Yes, it is name-calling and tactics to dismiss the other's point of view, not surprising since it is an entirely political issue at heart.

In reality the term should be "nonbeliever" since the HYPOTHESIS of global warming is not proven, and there can be no direct evidence of something that has not happened. Since it has not happened and is based on conjecture, it requires faith.

Answer 5

If you chose not to believe in evolution, would you also take offense if I called you an evolution denier?

There are some true global warming skeptics.  A skeptic keeps an open mind to all data.

A person who outright rejects all data which go counter to what he believes in is a denier.

For example, a person who says the temperature record on Earth isn't good enough to prove a warming trend and yet blindly accepts that we know other planets are warming is quite obviously a denier.

A person who says 'all other planets in our solar system are warming' and won't accept that this is false when it's proven by scientific data is also a denier.

Like I said, there are some global warming skeptics.  In fact, although I believe man-made global warming is true, I consider myself a skeptic, because I keep an open mind to all data.  But sometimes 'denier' is a more accurate term (quite often, in fact).

Answer 6

A person moves from being a skeptic to a denier when there is no level of supporting evidence they will accept before they acknowledge a theory is likely to be true.  The idea of skepticism is to be open to new data and information, and to constantly re-evaluate ideas.  Climate "skeptics" are close-minded regarding new data, treating new information as manipulated, or erroneous, or simply insufficient.  They, by and large, are not acting as skeptics, but as denialists.

Answer 7

For some, it is a clever way to compare them to holocaust deniers.  Others are simply so sure that it must be right that anyone that is skeptical is just denying the facts as they see them.  They seldom admit to the fact that many of their facts are based on assumptions.  Scientists should acknowledge when they are unsure of something.  When you are pushing an agenda, uncertainty gets in the way.

Note:  I see the down arrows presumably from Dana, Ken, and Benjamin.  The problem with them is they don't know enough to know they don't know.  They don't understand the intricacies of precipitaion and water vapor, yet they pretend to.  They have faith that modelers have taken all this into account and must be right.  The problem is their argument is based on ignorance rather than facts.  As Dana has asked, if not man, than what?  Since man can't be exhonerated, they must be guilty.  The truth is, they don't know and if humans have caused any warming it is certainly not much nor harmful overall.

Answer 8

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 9

Simple.......They are deniying the obvious.

As well as being deniers they are also selfish, inconsiderate often lazy and ignorant. They would rather deny, deny, deny than experience a little inconvenience amending their lifestyle to become a considerate member of the human race.

It doesn't matter whether the earth is warming or cooling at the end of the day though - what should matter is that a reasonable person should want to do what ever is possible to live their lives in a way which makes the world a cleaner, healthier, more plesant place to call home - for everyone - not just themselves.

Answer 10

I agree with you, just because someone thinks that global warming is occurring, how can you know for sure?  I think it's wrong to judge people just because they don't think global warming is happening.  Also, if you do believe global warming is happeneing, just acknowledging it isn't going to do anything.  Unless people actually work to find ways to improve ways of creating energy, global warming, if its even happening at all, isn't going to get better.

Answer 11

I avoid calling doubters deniers, but it's not arrogance to be fairly confident when your position agrees with:

Joint National Academy of Sciences (from 16 countries)

American Meteorological Society

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

American Geophysical Union

American Chemical Society

American Association of State Climatologists

National Center for Atmospheric Research

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

World Meteorological Organization

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute

The Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society

American Institute of Physics

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Network of African Science Academies

Royal Meteorological Society

International Union of Geological Sciences

...

The real arrogance comes from people with virtually no science training who quickly assume all the above organizations and a mountain of scientific research over the past 30 years are all wrong.  If someone wants to disagree about some of the peripheral issues (e.g. are hurricanes getting stronger or not, etc.) which are still being debated by legitimate climate scientists, that's fine.  But when non-scientists (or scientists without any climate science experience/training) come along and try to discount the entire AGW theory with nothing more than their own opinions to back them up, such people are asking to be called offensive names by their own arrogance.

Answer 12

NO we call them UNEDUCATED

Answer 13

<<it seems no fairer than, say, calling those who fervently believe to be "enviro-n***s" or "enviro-fascists".>>

in your mind, that has the same connotation as denier?  really?

let's see  denier : fascist  are they the same?

on the other hand, all the valid science confirms global warming.

just as all the valid science confirms evolution.

denier seems pretty appropriate in both cases.

(I suppose i could go into big bang denier, heliocentric denier, and more.  but i doubt that'd help much.)

Answer 14

I'm a skeptic/denier or whatever you want to call it.  I couldn't care less about the name.  I refer to them as panic-mongers and alarmists which they are.  Who cares about names?  If you're offended easily this isn't the best room to chat in, lol!