It seems one cannot disagree with the "consensus" without being called names. That's pretty sad, but it is not hate speech. Besides, intelligent people will see it for what it is, and that ends up hurting their credibility.
By definition, a denier is a person who denies something. A skeptic is a person who questions something.
Many people who claim to be skeptics are anything but. They don’t question the science of climate change, they reject it outright and make any number of bizarre statements in order to validate their claims; this is not skepticism.
A scientist might say the world is warming, a denier would reply by saying it’s not, a skeptic would question why it was warming, have other factors been considered, could it be natural, are the data correct etc etc.
Used properly the term “denier” is both etymologically correct and a statement of fact. When used inappropriately it can be applied with derisory or insulting undertones, or used in a manner that implicitly aims to cause offence.
If someone objects to being called a denier then chances are they only have themselves to blame. Perhaps they should stop denying and start questioning.
What do you think would be an appropriate term for a person who denies something?
I thought denier is an old French coin and something to do with yarn.
I like "denialist" better if we are inventing words.
Most people take sides in an issue and close half their brain. I prefer to keep neutral on most subjects and analyze information.
CO2 in the atmosphere DOES raise temperatures. Anyone that thinks otherwise has no science background. Also, there is no question that people are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Anyone talking against these facts has their head up their behind.
That is not to state that the CO2 increase is totally caused by humans, or that it is a sole cause of climate changes and a general warming. You can point to solar cycles that have a greater effect so far. You can research the fact that along with the CO2 we have added particulate matter to the atmosphere and that has a cooling effect in shading and reflection of energy which explains the leveling off in general of the past 14 years. You might also look into the science of projecting a mini-ice age that some valid scientists predict and that increased CO2 may be helpful.
There is nothing wrong with an opposing view as long as it is not an asinine view. It is valid to say we need to consider the expense of CO2 reduction by cleaner energy use and be selective about technologies to support financially.
There are many ways to provide an intelligent counter-argument. Denying what is known is plain silly.
As to denier or denialist or denizen of the deep, I don't think offering counterarguments is wrong and if someone wants to seem foolish by not having their facts in order, I don't have a major problem with it myself. I do get annoyed with proselytizing of religious beliefs at my doorstep.
I am not against free speech. People can say denier all they want. I am also not against free hate speech.
People are starting to forget what freedom is all about. I have a black brother and I can tell you that there is nothing that angers me like the KKK. Still... I served in the Air Force. I took a vow to defend the Constitution against all enemies. Freedom of speech should NOT be infringed upon. EVER. I would protect with my life the KKK's right to free speech. I would also gladly stop them if they tried to hurt others or inhibit their rights.
Freedom is only attained by having the strength to protect the rights of the worst people saying the most horrific things.
We are here talking about climate change. Not racism, not justifying mass murder, not promoting child pornography. CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
We are all concerned about the decisions we make now in terms of energy negatively impacting us and our children. We are not talking about raping nuns or bashing the skulls of baby seals. We are concerned and arguing over the best path towards future security and welfare for our children and their children. That is true of all sides of this issue.
So if some person wants to call me a liar or a "denier" or whatever phrase they want to use, they just tip their hand. They simply show that when I say they are exaggerating, THEY ARE EXAGGERATING!!! There is simply no way of getting around the fact that calling me a "denier" is exaggeration, given they cannot even say what I am denying.
So what though? All sides of the issue do the same thing. This issue has become a divisive issue. We are fighting and angry over what? I look at this BS we insult each other over and have to laugh at everyone, including myself.
You know what angers me? Seeing a woman come to work with bruises on her face. Hearing of children dying from stray bullets from drive-by shooting. Warlords stopping food from getting to the starving in 3rd world countries. Hateful, evil things.
What are we really talking about here? A difference of opinion about what the future holds. As if one of us holds that magic crystal ball, and the others are just too stupid to look into the ball.
No, the word 'denier' is definitely not hate speech. It's just an accurate term for someone who denies something - in this case science. I'm sure it's not welcomed by those described but it's not offensive.
Extra: Deniers are people who judge facts, measurements and accumulated human knowledge against their preconceptions. If the facts don't come up to scratch they presume people providing the information must be wrong and shout "liar!"
Stupid, ignorant, gullible and misguided are appropriate words to describe these people.
I think it is, at *worst*, slightly inaccurate. And most of the time, not even that.
And all of your examples of how "alarmists" are out of touch with reality are, to my knowledge, either misunderstandings or flat-out lies about what realists are actually saying. For example, saying "There's not a true pause in global warming, only a slowdown, or possible pause, in the rise of surface temperatures. That apparent pause is because of A, B, and C" could be glossed as "There is no pause, and here is why the pause is happening", but only if you're being deliberately misleading.
Nah! They can call me any name. I have been called worse.
Quote by Gerrit van der Lingen, scientist: “Being a scientist means being a skeptic.”
Everyone owes it to themselves and to society to be skeptical. To be otherwise, you can be easily duped by the likes of Al Gore, snake oil salesman, or any carny that comes down the road.
I find it true that greenies and bobble heads nod in agreement to anything out of the ordinary.
Suppose we could use the term 'ignorance' or 'ignorant' if you prefer in your case?
Is it hate?? I am sure some people are tired of people denying evidence and facts. If, as you claim, you are an skeptic you wouldn't have made the additional comments. They show you are denying (or ignorant) of facts, you are not skeptical.
Deniers only refute the scientific integrity of climate science's techniques in coming to a conclusion about humans "destroying the Planet" with fossil fuels. CO2 is much more of an "enticer" of life than it is a "deterrent".
Before you understand or practice scientific skepticism, you have to sufficiently master science – educationally, intellectually, and through years of practical training and experience - so that you can define scientific hypothesis tests, design and conduct scientific experiments to test those hypotheses, and write a professional scientific document describing your research and conclusions. Galileo described mathematics as, “the language with which God wrote the universe.”
Deniers are incapable of being skeptics because they do not speak Galileo’s language; they do not understand the epistemology of the scientific method - including the philosophy of knowledge it is based on; they do not understand the fundamental concepts of science – including what does and what does not qualify as scientific evidence; and they are as clueless of the scientific process as an elementary school student. They also lack the intellectual honesty to be scientists.
Deniers are Deniers; they deny; denial is all they do because it is the only thing they can do. They are not competent to skeptically evaluate anything scientific. They are not skeptics because they do have the necessary education, training, or intellectual discipline and rigor – and Deniers who call themselves skeptics are not just wrong, they are liars.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/25/In-praise-of-hate-speech
I like the term skeptic myself because I'm skeptical of CAGW. I'm skeptical that man made CO2 is raising temperatures that much, that man made CO2 is harmful to the planet, that we are seeing any increase in extreme weather events and that we need to spend billions or trillions on idiotic green energy scams.
The people that I really see as "deniers" are the alarmists. Alarmists HATE reality. For them, models and predictions are their reality. When their fantasy reality collides with actually reality they start to lose their senses.
They will say things like:
"There is NO pause. And besides we know the reasons why there IS a pause."
"Climate models are extremely accurate. It's just that Mother Nature is not playing along."
"'Hide the Decline' is a perfectly acceptable scientific term. There was no subterfuge implied. It was just taken out of context."
So do you think the term "denier" is hateful? I actually don't mind it myself, I just think it's directed at the wrong side.
Yes, but that is standard practice when losing an argument, attack and denigrate the opposition, become abusive when lacking evidence.
Quote
"Don’t believe in global warming, er, climate change? Your intelligence is questioned and your character impugned. You get called a stupid racist redneck or a planet hater. Some statists have even called ‘climate deniers’ to be imprisoned"
Hmm he missed out damned liar.
Thats how thoughtful and logical realists are
You are not a skeptic. Skeptics ask questions and learn from the answers. A skeptic is someone who insists on evidence before believing somethings.
Most skeptics actually believe that AGW is real, because of the evidence.
A person who portrays "warmers" as incoherent by making contradictory straw man arguments is plainly someone who denies the truth about global warming.
No it's a statement of fact, deniers continue to deny regardless of the facts. Skeptics are willing to listen to reason. Skeptic magagazine the organ of the Skeptics Society has accepted the reality of Global Warming.
Check it out http://www.skeptic.com/tag/global-warmin...
"denier" is as much hate-speech as "bossy" .... It Is NOT !!!!
As I've said before, "denier" seems to be a more pleasant term than "liar," which is what virtually all deniers are. They even lie when they call themselves "skeptics."
Not when applied to matters unrelated to race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
