I think "denier" is name calling that attempts to put climate change into a yes-or-no category. You are either all in or you are all out. And it is just one more small step in the name-calling arena to call climate change deniers, "science deniers" like they reject all science, which is rarely, if ever, true. For example, there is a whole category of people that believe climate change is real and caused by human CO2, but they they disagree on how fast it it occuring. They are often called "lukewarmers." If I believe warming is occuring at 2.5C per century and you believe it is happening at 1.0C per century, does that make you a "denier?" I don't think so. Yet, if people disagree with the amount and kind of action to take in response to climate change, they risk being put into the "denier" category, when they do not disagree with the science at all.
There are many nuances and positions to take in scientific discussions. Calling someone a "denier," with its Holocaust implications when they do not agree with you on everything is an attempt to shut down down and polarize discussions that need to be had.
Bill Nye fabricated an experiment or Al Gore's 24 hour global warming telethon. Not only that, even if he hadn't lied about it, the experiment wasn't demonstrating global warming so he was wrong on the science too.
The use of denier is to associate with Holocaust deniers. Michael Mann in his book complains about a scientist being called a Nazi and how this was especially hurtful because the scientist's relatives were in a concentration camp. Yet he uses the term 'denier', while knowing this context.
Ehh. The media has legitimatized a lot of denial, recycling old, inaccurate and agenda-driven stuff disguised as science. But it is also very good at giving press to alarm. Maybe the media is the biggest problem in public dialogue, whether it is climate change or politics. I don't see Bill Nye as a great front man for Climate Change, but science is not great at public relations overall. Denial was a good term to describe people who dispute science based on political or religious ideology, but the linkage to the Holocaust was unfortunate and then the term was way overused...and as a result became an insult on a much greater scale than its opposite, alarmist...seems at the moment both denial and alarmism are declining in the public discourse but some of the muckety-muck wannabes continue to want to keep things riled up. Although they describe extreme positions, I personally would choose to let both terms, denial and alarm, fade away. But as long as one is used, the other will be too.
I don't think true skeptics should be called deniers, nor should people who are legitimately trying to figure out what is going on with climate. Nor do I think we should give in to alarm and take actions that are based on insufficient knowledge of the outcomes and timing. If some people would stop calling other people names it would help a lot to figure out what it is we truly DO know and the best course of action to follow.
I don't think skeptics should be called deniers.
However, the only skeptics I see around here are the science realists that think global warming is real.
Almost none of the people that argue against it in here are skeptics. They don't care whether something is true or false, they will support ANY nonsense that fits with their denial world view. There is more than one person in here that tries to argue against the greenhouse effect. That's not skepticism, that's not having a grasp on scientific reality. No climate scientist--even ones that don't think global warming is a problem--denies the greenhouse effect.
Most of the people in here that get called "deniers" are patently dishonest liars, or else scientifically delusional. It's not a matter of them weighing the evidence and being unsure--they're quite sure in their denial, or at least in their advocacy for it. Whether they actually believe it or not is another question entirely.
Yeah, I don't really care what Bill Nye thinks about anything. FACTS are that the problem the warmers community has is SELF-INFLICTED.
They have bias in their own field to such an extent that 95% of their models are currently overestimating. They have the media pumping out the worst-case scenarios and even impossible scenarios as if this is what is going to occur. What goes out as the "truth" about AGW in the mass media is further from the truth then what even the worst "deniers" put out. How do they not expect a backlash when they make claims from the past that simply did not come true and claims for the future that are impossible???
And that Bill Nye charlatan. He runs that stupid "experiment" where he "demonstrates" the effect of CO2, but the experiment is entirely bogus. He basically LIED to people with that experiment, counting on the fact that few people would try to duplicate it. So we have a "scientists" who is willing to lie for his political viewpoints, and I am supposed to care what this charlatan thinks?
I really can't figure out how Warming Activists consider themselves to be Skeptics. AGW Alarmists/Activists have been totally unaccepting of anything that flies in the face of their blind faith beliefs.
The REAL Deniers are the Alarmists......they deny that data fraud runs rampant throughout their numbers. Their snivelling, liberal attempts to discredit anyone who refuse to drink their Kool-Aid have made them the laughing stock of society.....The Alarmists are in denial.
Bill Nye is an embarrassment to the science community.....a delusional kiddy-show performer.
Actually I think they are dragging down the term skeptic, and also lowering science down to gutter levels, science is not about calling names, thats what children and immature people do.
you could call a lot of deniers, a river of deniers, because they are in denial
I think the denier term helps the skeptic/realist side more than anything else. How can anyone expect to be taken seriously when they chant denier like some playground school child. It makes them sound like idiots, Sorry I mean even more idiotic than the content of their arguments imply.
Why not?
For most of them their arguments are as ludicrous as evolution or vaccination deniers; in many cases their arguments are identical (eg paranoid global conspiracies ; fraudulant scientists afraid of losing grants ; corrupt peer review blocking real science )
Bill Nye thinks so
I have no respect for anyone that uses that term. It is meant as an insult. People will treat you as you treat them.
Climate change skeptics? No. Climate change deniers? yes. Calling a climate change denier a climate change skeptic is an insult to climate change skeptics.
It's as good term as any if you want to be politically correct and avoid the blunt truth: they are either mentally ill or they are not being honest. There are no other reasons for "denying" the evidence supporting human-induced climate change.
Yes, calling them skeptics makes them sound a bit credible whereas really they are just ostriches or people with shares in coal mines.
many are. denier is not the same as skeptic.
