Just claiming to be a skeptic does not make you a skeptic in any reasonable sense. A forecast for 6" of snow is given today for your general location. When someone makes the statement they do not believe that there will be 6" of snow today is really not being a skeptic in a logical sense. We all can be skeptical of how much snow will fall today. Some can say it will be more, some can say it will be less. That would make nearly all of us skeptics in this very broad interpretation of what a skeptic is. A true skeptic of what the science shows us to be the probabilities of something happening must show why he/she is skeptical based on evidence and not on opinion. They must then accept the peer reviewed scientific evidence that does not support their own skepticism. When they do less than this, they are just in denial of the peer reviewed scientific evidence provided them.
Easy: deniers are almost universally liars who will repeat anything, no matter how outrageous, that will support their position. By and large the deniers on here have next to no background in science at all, and no basis for judging the validity of a statement. Much of the denier argument is based on poorly written headlines in the popular media.
Skeptics (and I am a skeptic) are people that care about the evidence regarding a subject and who recognize the shortcomings of their knowledge.
There are plenty of skeptics all over the world, I am by nature a skeptic and became an atheist during bible classes when I was about 8 or 9. (Genesis did not make much sense to me even then) And like you I am an opponent of climate change propaganda, as are most people who accept global warming science.
I do see a lot of hate speech like "execute all those who voted for OBAMA", "My advice to you -- hunt down the Green like they are rabid dingos. And dispose of them accordingly" and "Well what I would LIKE to see every person who believes in the idiocy of AGW permanently exiled from America"
Just like I did back then in bible class, I still ask a lot of questions when I feel I do not understand something or something seems illogical, nowadays I tend to go to "point of view neutral sites" for the answers (it is a lot faster) and it is clear to me that CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, It is equally clear that we are adding so much to the atmosphere that nature is unable to absorb it all. Denying that this does not affect the heat retention capacity of the atmosphere is rather foolish in the light of the evidence and the appropriate term to describe people who make that argument is "denier".
A skeptic would argue something like "the climate models have a wide range, so lets take the average of those models, while we try to improve the models", or "lets make sure the research we do is not limited to what I want to hear."
In your reply to "The Ghost of Christmas Past" you make up yet another straw man argument. Anyway calling some one a liar when you can show that they are lying or have lied is not "insulting" it is using correct terminology.
The difference is that skeptics are willing to accept facts and evaluate evidence, deniers have adopted a position often for political reasons, and will dig in there heels against the facts.
Real skeptics have accepted the realities of global warming
Joe is right about denier being a form of hate speech but since it is committed by leftists it is ignored by the politically correct. It is an attempt to link AGW skepticism with holocaust deniers. Since the left can't win arguments on their face, they typically resort to ad hom attacks. Some try to play cutesy by using words like denialists which is nothing more than a version of the same thing. Obviously skeptic is an accurate and less offensive term which is why it is seldom used. I am sure if you did a survey, denier would be used 10 times more than skeptic.
Skeptic believes things are unlikely or not enough proof.
Deniers are people faced with what considered to be logical and superior evidence, but do not accept it.
For global warming, there are CO2, natural sun cycle, things like volcano/comet etc.
Ice melting will not be stopped even CO2 level remain the same....
A skeptic is someone who is cautious on a subject or matter, not fulling believing if or denying it, while i denier is someone who is firm in their beliefs.
Denier is a means of associating skeptics with Nazis. If you refuse to fall into line with the declared statements of the other side, then you are branded a Nazi. Note, that this only works in one direction. It is inappropriate to label certain people on this board as deniers of the fact that the latest IPCC report is based on using graphs upside-down.
A sceptic is someone who does not believe an argument, but is prepared to listen. A denier is someone who intrinsically knows the truth, but claims to believe otherwise. That's what the words mean in the English language. What Americans mean by them is anybody's guess.
From the standpoint of both refusing to accept the reality of AGW, there is no difference. A certain amount of skepticism is healthy, however, downright denial is denial no matter what you call it
Views don't make you a traitor except in countries where you have no rights to dissension. Like in the past in Argentina where opening your mouth could result in your permanent disappearance You are only a traitor if you betray your country actively
Many people here talk about deniers and skeptics, and I must confess to being curious as to what they perceive the difference to be. When I hear someone throw this out it makes me smile and reminds me of a scene in an old Woody Allen movie called Bananas. Fielding Mellish (Woody) is on trial for treason and Miss America is giving evidence against him, she states '' I believe that Fielding Mellish is a traitor to this country because his views are different to that of the President and others of his kind, differences of opinion should be tolerated but not when they are too different because then he becomes a subversive mother.''
Is this kind of what is going in the heads of those who perceive this difference amongst opponents of climate change propaganda ?
Skeptics/deniers understand the simple mathematics of CO2 warming and "know" that CO2 doesn't force temperatures in either direction.
Science tells us (paleontology) that it was colder 450 million years ago (12C) than today when CO2 levels were approximately 4400ppm (11 times what it is today).
Science also tells us that the Planet was the warmest (26C) when CO2 levels were 800ppm 60 million years ago. Current Global average temperature is around 14.77C.
CO2 levels were the same 330 million years ago and 300 million years ago, yet average temperatures were 20C and 12C respectively.
Where is the science going wrong?
Science creates skeptics/deniers because they don't know and claim they do.
It says far more about the user and chooser of the term than about to whom it refers.
'Denier' is nothing but a form of hate speech that has entered the common lexicon. Is typically used by those not secure in their own beliefs but feel threatened if they dare to think for themselves.
The basic rule is: if I don't believe in something, I'm a skeptic; if you don't believe in something I believe in, you're a denier.
