Nah, don't ban them. It marks the person saying it as unserious.
"It is clearly an attempt to link people to holocaust denial" Not according to the dictionary definition.
"and does nothing to increase the level of dialogue." So why bring it up yet again?
I think it is quite funny how it is almost always the deniers who continually equate themselves (and others) to a political ideology, in this case Nazism. However if the shoe fits, and for some, like Sagebrush it is a perfect size, wear it. Seriously when you call for the execution of over 60 million countrymen for the crime of voting for the "wrong" presidential candidate and quoting Nazi's leaders in order to support your claims you have no right to complain about being compared to Nazi's and/or the holocaust. (Even IF the term "denier" was meant to be linked and it isn't, to the denial of the holocaust)
Denial is a psychological term, and everyone suffers from denial to varying extents. There are plenty of pscyhological studies showing that opposition to scientific results on global warming is, in some people, only possible through denial.
In particular, there's a link between 'conspiracist ideation' and rejection of climate change science, and denial of evidence is a very important part of conspiracy theories.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/5/622....
There is also the 'Dunning-Kruger effect' where people assume that their opinions are right, because they think they know a lot more than experts who have actually studied something, and other evidence has to be denied to maintain this illusion. And the 'cultural cognition' effect where evidence is denied if it contradicts with the ideas of your political group or tribe.
There are plenty of psychological studies on climate science denial, and it's found to be a real thing. People just automatically psychologically reject evidence they don't like and it's particularly strong in some areas: like the Moon Landing, AIDS and climate change.
Here's one study from back in 2001, there are loads more if you look.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...
Given the reaction of many of the "skeptics" when other evidence is presented, denier can be the correct term for some of them IMO.
"It is clearly an attempt to link people to holocaust denial, and does nothing to increase the level of dialogue."
Your argument makes no sense. You are against calling global warming deniers, people who are so extraordinarily similar to Holocaust deniers, "deniers", because it implies they are similar to Holocaust deniers.
Are you also against referring to jewel thieves as "thieves" because it makes them sound like car thieves?
I actually embrace the term. It was used out of desperation from the alarmists because they can't argue facts.
-"There has been no significant warming for 17 years."
-"DENIER."
-"World wide crop production has gone up over the past few decades"
-"DENIER."
-"Deaths from natural disasters have gone down considerably. Non industrialized countries suffer the most deaths as they don't have the infrastructure in place to deal with natural calamities."
-"DENIER."
-"Malaria cases have gone down over the past decade."
-"DENIER."
Edit: @Pegminer... If you would like to refute any of the above claims be my guest.
No. Denial is an accurate term for people who are not dealing with the facts. Alarmist is nearly as accurate for people who think the world is coming to an end Tuesday. The difference is that people who are in denial generally take offense to it regardless of the underlying reason they are in denial, while people who are called alarmists rarely take offense, they're usually more like so what because they're raising alarms about an issue they care about. That's why you see terms like 'alarmunists' which have been tried to make the term more offensive by combining words like alarmist and communist. Some people have linked climate change and AGW denial to the Holocaust and that is like saying someone is like Hitler, but that's not what denial means any more than the comparisons made between the Republican Party today and Hitler. Or the current administration and Hitler. It's not accurate...but the term denial is.
I personally feel there is an overuse of both terms, denial and alarmism...sometimes people are labeled one or the other too freely when a question or comment is not necessarily based in denial or alarm. And once the label is applied to a regular participant here it is very hard to shake. Some people come here for information and ask a question or make a comment without being aware of the facts and get labeled as deniers when in fact they are not, in my opinion. People who continually repeat falsehoods (aka 'lies') even after the facts are pointed out ARE practicing or in denial. It's a little harder to pin the alarmist label on someone. Several have tried various approaches like putting words in other people's mouths-wanting everyone to go back to living in trees and so on, a lot of very obvious misstatements of others' positions, so inaccurate and awkward it is almost embarrassing to witness.
I don't see any clear way to increase the level of dialogue here, it is at a ridiculously low level at this point with very rare real information being exchanged about the current state of climate research and what it indicates for the future, which is what I used to come here for. Now I stop in periodically to see what the latest silliness is. Usually the silliness is driven by the people in denial and quite frequently the regular deniers here, who usually go on for some months and then are replaced by someone else or sometimes change their names and come back displaying the same persona. Participants who can actually discuss the science have and are dropping out, and only a few are left...people who ask genuinely skeptical questions or offer skeptical comments are as few and far between as the ones who discuss the science and developing research. I could name names and give examples, but what is the point? Y/A is not a particularly useful place to come for information in general unless you want to find out how to recharge the A/C in your car or what kind of fish get along in aquariums...nuts and bolts sorts of things. Politics & many science categories are obviously, at this juncture, for entertainment at the expense of the frustrated people who are ventng their obvious impotence. There is no point in banning anyone.
Denier is a good word. I don't mind being called one. Everyone is a denier of course. You can't deny that.
It says much more about the caller than the callee. In fact, if someone uses the "D" word you can pretty much guarantee that they will be talking drivel. So it is a quick way to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Well it would be legitimate to ban the term since it's used as a holocaust related insult, but if we did, how would we spot the anti-science green religion eco fascist cultists so easily.
there is nothing to link the holocaust with climate. The term is accurate when people claim to be skeptic but refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts their worldview.
you want to increase the level of dialogue? Quit cut/pasting from denier blogs and bring new ideas or questions that are relevant and not based on conspiracy theories.
Good old Peggy. Doesn't know anything about climate but knows that all of the true scientists on this site are 'liars'. The school marm, Peggy, claims to be a PhD but acts and writes like a frustrated teenager. So when the school marm points a finger at someone, three are pointing right back at that someone.
In answer to the question: I personally don't care what they call me. I know that I am a great person. My wife of 48 years and my children all agree. So as long as they are on my side, why would I let a bunch of mental misfits who don't know beans about the environment and get taken in by con men, like Al Gore, bother me. To me it is a badge of honor to be called derogatory names by people who think they came from a monkey and a 0.7 degree C rise in Earth's temperature in 350 years is a calamity.
You have to consider the source of the denigrating remarks. Take for example the Grifter. He proudly displays his I. Q. with his icon. As far as the Dork, well that says it all right there. Then there is Prico. One letter away from the real truth. He recently had to change his name so people wouldn't see who he really is.
Do you really think anything people like these can influence an honest stable person like me and the other true scientists on this site? The fact that they have to resort to that type of action shows that they are mental midgets in the land of intellectual giants.
I'm a skeptic but I don't object to being called a denier, because it's true I deny global warming is a problem.
Pegminer. are you calling me a liar
It is clearly an attempt to link people to holocaust denial, and does nothing to increase the level of dialogue.
For me a Holocaust denier is someone who claims the holocaust actually happened knowing full well that it is a bunch of Jewish lies and wartime propaganda.
It would be more productive to ban global warming deniers from Yahoo Answers, because they habitually lie and use multiple accounts.
There is nothing wrong with the word "denier". As typically used it refers to anyone that denies something in contradiction to objective information. One could be a denier about any subject.
The most appropriate word other than denier that I know of would be "liar", but I doubt they would prefer that.
EDIT: Kano, I would prefer to call you a denier. You do spread misinformation, though, and you do so willingly. Many deniers are terribly misinformed and refuse to learn any science. Your information about hurricanes was wrong, and Sagebrush's information about tornadoes is wrong. No one needs to take my word for it--such things are easily checked (and I even linked a plot which shows you are wrong) and not doing so shows so complicity in spreading wrong information.
I notice that you don't say anything about people who use the term "alarmist".
Actually the standard definition for denier is one who denies reality. Since AGW is indeed a reality anyone who denies it including those who think the are above deniers, calling themselves skeptics define themselves. Don't be ridiculous Instead we should ban most of the deniers here for posting misinformation and lies in answer to those who are seeking real help at the forum. Your ilk should be ashamed of themselves
"It is clearly an attempt to link people to holocaust denial/......" Dont be a total moron
Read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
that is what the left does...much like calling anyone who just disagrees with them a racist....it is ALL they do...
