Address questions asked without labelling people, that is address the question than rather trying to insult or stereotype a person. Address the person (asker) as an individual and not a label.
This of course rings true for everyone ... this board is full of name calling, and very few people actual care about the science. They each are trying to score brownie points rather than actually address the question at hand. Some people love posting the same answer for every question they answer on these boards (do they even read the questions anymore)??
I don't see what is wrong with alarmists. I suppose it could tend to mean that they are alarmed over nothing or overly alarmed about something. It certainly wasn't dreamed up to compare them to Holocaust deniers.
We can't use warmunist since it is too much like communist
Warmon is like Mormon referring to religious like and to some make a cult.
I have heard Warm mongers but most clearly don't like war. They are closer to the anti-war crowd so that one doesn't work.
Some would like you to call them realists. Interestingly that is what some socialists call themselves.
They only listen to half the facts so we could call them the tone deaf but that doesn't have a good ring to it.
Hmmmm.
Nope I can't come up with any better than alarmists so I will wait until something better comes along.
I've always thought it silly that that deniers call science literates "alarmists" because deniers are the most alarmist people I know. You guys practically tell us that life as we know it will end if we do something to stop global warming.
If you don't like being called a denier, don't deny.
Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
I always laugh when they call themselves "realists" since all alarmists HATE reality. Their whole shtick is making dire predictions to scare people into believing their religion. When reality doesn't cooperate with them they just double down and make yet another prediction of climate catastrophe.
I prefer to call them Climachondriacs. They are the deniers.
Who denies that our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of
fossil fuels?
Who denies that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous
warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan?
Who denies that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is
a product of climate change not a cause?
Who denies 150 years of chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 that suggest that ice core
reconstructions of past CO2 concentrations are low by 60 ppm?
Who denies that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite
significant increases in human emissions of CO2 due to industrialization?
Who denies that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and by far the dominant climate gas,
not CO2?
Who denies that increasing CO2 is a substantial benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the
seven billion people on this planet?
Who denies that our oceans are alkaline not acidic and can never turn acidic because of
buffering?
Who denies the leveling off of the Global Temperature for the past 17years?
Who denies that all 73 computerized climate models are epic failures?
Who denies that theories which fail validation tests are dead?
Who denies the supremacy of evidence over theory?
Who denies the supremacy of logic and evidence over authority and consensus?
Who denies that Extreme Weather has always been with us and cannot be traced to CO2?
Who denies that the Climategate e-mails showed fundamental cheating by those scientists promoting Global Warming?
Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?
"Alarmist" is not offensive. Most people called "alarmists" are not alarmed, but some are, and the press is notorious for throwing sensationalistic words like "alarming" into articles about climate change whenever possible.
What is offensive is endlessly lying about science.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes.
Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...
http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
Science literates is ******* hillarious when these litetates are too stupid to figure out what they are signing before they sign a petition to ban water. Denier is actually the better term for those who ignore reality and pretend to have a clue about science.
Greenies should suffice. It beats calling them ignoramuses, which they clearly are. It beats calling them foolish ones, which they clearly are. It beats calling them communist proponents, which they clearly are. It beats calling them Al Gorists, which they clearly are. It beats calling them simpletons, which they clearly are. We could truly call them rubes or suckers or even marks for falling for such an obvious scam. However, some of these on this site are the con artists and some are the rubes so that wouldn't be exactly truthful.
Greenies covers most all aspects of those who oppose true science and support Al Gore who is going green in the wallet.
As for me. You can call me anything. I am not offended because I have been proven right.
Alarmists have nothing good to bring to the table. That's why they "alarm" people with their apocalyptic statements (Hence, the word "alarmist").
I know I hate being called a denier and I assume alarmist is just as offensive so for the future I would like to call "alarmists" by what that want to be called. By the way, right, actual scientists, good people, were truthful your full of ****, and Alex your a *** will not be accepted as answers and I will forever more call you an alarmist for those answers.
It is a very simple issue to me.
Catastrophic global warming is a hypothesis, based on computer models. Some people believe this hypothesis to be true, others are skeptical. So we have believers and skeptics.
Since everybody is going off saying why global warming is real or false and not answering the question. At least the skeptics are using real science. .I'll just keep saying alarmist cause nobody answered the question.
>> I know I hate being called a denier<<
Then stop being one.
And - no one cares what Deniers call them because no one respects Deniers or cares what they think or say.
You don't need to deny very much to be called a denier. In fact, everyone is a denier. Deny it if you can!
Most so-called deniers agree that the world has warmed in the last 150 years. So we could have been part of the consensus in the Doran and Zimmerman 97% survey. Unlike the two earth scientists who denied it.
Climate Realist says "And we are causing it." then links to a chart that claims to show 10 human fingerprints of climate change. For instance "rising tropopause". I realise I am dim because I am not a scientist, but I don't see men on the top of tall towers pushing the tropopause upwards. So how is that a human fingerprint of anything? Most of the "fingerprints" do not necessarily imply human-caused.
Then we go on to the ten warmest years. We agree with you, we have seen the data, too. See the graph below.
To address the question, there is a problem with any label. Over time, the most euphemistic and politically correct labels will be transformed back into what the original labels meant. It is how you use a word and not the letters it contains that matter.
(Writing computer programs can take the magic out of labels. I once used a language that could support labels of any length. The first catch was that only the first 256 characters counted. The second catch was that the assembler put your labels in a list and replaced the first one with 0 and the second one with 1 etc before it actually used them. The label was only for the benefit of the programmer. The logic and operation of the program were complete oblivious to any labelling efforts.)
The other problem is that there are not two, completely separate, opposing teams. So two labels are never going to be enough.
Most of them prefer to be called professor or doctor. Not... Alex, or Dubya, like the idiot deniers
how 'bout, "Saganites".
Carl Sagan was one of the greatest men to ever live and conservatives tend to hate him
I tend to prefer "realist", but "warmist" is a reasonably neutral term that people tend not to get offended by.
Scarers.
Call them climate science communicators, or climate realists.
