Global Warming Denier?

Question

Referring to this term commonly used today, is it just a coincidence that this invokes the more omnious term, "holocaust denier", or do those who use it actually feel that there is a connection in character between those who deny the existance of man-made global warming and the murder of six-seven million Jews by the Nazis in WW2.

..ominous, sorry

Answer 1

The correct term should be “sceptic”

Everyone is a sceptic by default and remains so until they become convinced, at which point they become a believer.

Even if you’re sceptical about the world being round, you’re still a sceptic, as that is the term that’s used in science.

At the end of the day the issue ought to be moot, because it should be as simple as this…

I don’t like being called a ‘denier’, because of the ‘Holocaust Denier’ connotations it evokes. I prefer the word sceptic. Since the two words are almost synonymous, please would you refer to me as a sceptic?

There’s no arguing with that, but some people still insist on using the term ‘denier’. There must be a reason for this, and I would argue that that reason is the knowledge that they are, indeed, implying a link between a Global Warming Sceptic and a ‘Holocaust Denier’.

It is cheap and underhand.

Could it also be proof that they know their case is weak and are thus forced to use such tactics in an attempt to intimidate their opponents?

Perish the thought!

:::EDIT::::

I just *had* to comment on Dana’s answer, below.

Dana says of deniers…

“These are the people who will dismiss climate models as being unreliable…”

So, since I question the reliability of the climate models I’m a ‘denier’, am I? But hang on a minute… I question the reliability of the predictions based on the climate models because experts in forecasting have said that they are unsound (See http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf ) So Dana is claiming that the climate scientists’ abilities at forecasting trump any mere forecasting expert, is he?. But I’m the one in denial?

He then goes on to say than even ‘disbeliever’ couldn’t be used either. So, he has the choice of either ‘sceptic’ or ‘disbeliever’, but, despite the fact that sceptics have expressed their discomfort with the term ‘denier’, he insists on continuing to use it. He is either being extremely obtuse, or he’s doing it deliberately for some reason.

He then mentions a question by Tomcat who “chose the one answer that said what he wanted to hear”. Well, have a look at this question from Bob…

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As3.NniOEjt1eTBOtUZaUqwhBgx.?qid=20070801063241AA7uYn0&show=7#profile-info-7a1a4586cbdfad0a780847164818434aaa

…who asks…

“Why do people think *philosophical views* about global warming are more credible than the data?” [my emphasis]

He proceeded to choose Dana’s answer as Best despite the fact that it included the following statement…

“The potential consequences of not acting are far far worse than the potential consequences of acting when we don't need to.”

But that’s not a verifiable fact, it is nothing but Dana’s personal “philosophical view” on Global Warming. So Bob did exactly what Tomcat has done.

The words ‘pot’ and ‘kettle’ spring to mind.

Perhaps we should start calling the believers ‘extremists’, ‘fanatics’ or ‘zealots’ with all the Taliban terrorist connotations that those labels imply? Of course they would immediately show their hypocritical colours by criticising anyone who did that!

Typical.

Answer 2

It's actually a MISNOMER.

"Global Warming Denier" by definition is a person that denies global warming is happening at all.

Virtually NOBODY falls under this category. EVERYONE agrees that the globe is warming.

What is being argued is whether global warming is man made or not.

To me, this is just propaganda to make people think that "MAN made" opponents are stupid, because only an idiot would "deny" that there is global warming, right?

Not only that, but calling them "Deniers" makes it sound like they are turning their back on "FACT" much like Holocaust Deniers and criminals that "deny" their charges in court. They usually use the word "deny" when a person opposes overwhelming evidence against them.

Well if you ask me, if there is overwelming evidence that man is the primary cause for global warming, the experts have been doing a very poor job of presenting it in a convincing way.

Another thing the "denier" could mean is that the person is close minded and will not even entertain the possibility, or even look at the evidence. That is absolutely not true.

I think the correct term to use is "Man Made Global Warming SKEPTIC".

Answer 3

People use the term "global warming denier" to vilify and marginalize those that are skeptical of or disagree with the hypothesis of man made global warming. The term denier implies that what is being denied is settled truth and the denier either cannot or will not see it. The correct term of course is skeptic.

The use of the term denier implies that the user is more interested in spreading a gospel than in scientific discussion.

Answer 4

I'd never made a link between 'global warming denier' and 'holocaust denier' and I don't think anyone is suggesting that GW deniers are also holocaust deniers.

Having been using this forum for several months it's not a term I'd seen used very often until recently. I think it's more widespread use is the result a newcomer amongt the regulars in this section. Said person clearly being a denier as opposed to the more usual skeptics.

Until recently users of this forum could pretty much be described as either a skeptic or a beleiver, occasionally an undecided. Now if we wish to emcompass all users it's necessary to include the term 'denier' as well.

Answer 5

I think the term is kind of a polite default. "Skeptic" is used in the same way. Conspiracy or Hoax believers would be more accurate.

Unfortunately the elements they have in common with the holocaust deniers are all too real. The mindset of both is to deny something foul and shameful so that it can continue.

Answer 6

I first saw the term used in George Monbiot's 'Heat'. Until that point I always used the term 'skeptic', but he made a valid point that many people are not skeptical of global warming, they simply reject it for the sake of rejection.

A skeptic is someone who is unconvinced but is capable of being convinced. Many people will simply never be convinced that humans are causing global warming regardless of how overwhelmingly convincing the data becomes. These are the people who will dismiss climate models as being unreliable, then when a model seems to support their point they claim it's the final nail in the anthropogenic global warming coffin. They only accept evidence which supports their point.

The accurate term for people like this is "denier". It has nothing to do with holocaust denial. "Disbeliever" is not accurate because global warming is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of scientific evidence.

*edit* Here's a perfect example. Read this question, read some of the answers (especially Trevor's), and then the "best answer". Note that the "best answer" dismisses my answer because it was from a BBC story, but the BBC story was about a scientific paper.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoywThrORA6HV4gCuFi5ZzXty6IX?qid=20070830155812AAgrv4i&show=7#profile-info-pZi3HXdnaa

Tomcat is a global warming denier. He chose the one answer that said what he wanted to hear, rather than the many people who actually answered his question with scientific evidence which proved that the sun is not the main cause of the current global warming. Global warming denier is simply an accurate description.

Answer 7

I think the term "Global Warming Denier" is idiotic. However, that goes right along with most of what the Global Warming Alarmists seem to believe.

It's not the pattern of warming that's disputed. It's the cause that's in dispute. Correlating CO2 to warming is not persuasive. Correlation is not causation. Real scientists know that.

Global Warming is just a big scare to get you to support tax money being spent to buy carbon offsets from third world countries, and to support subsidies to inefficient industries like ethanol and wind farms, and to get you to reduce your consumption so the demand for oil declines, benefiting developing countries like China who are using dirty coal plants like there was no tomorrow.

To call it idiotic is being kind.

Answer 8

I have lots of info that I think you will find quite helpful and enlightening:

http://ecowellness.multiply.com/ for excellent inspirational info within my blog to help not only our world and its creatures, but to also open peoples hearts and minds to many amazing wonders that life has to offer. I also have lots of info in my blog to help fuel peoples imaginations to many possibilities that can be found only in the minds eye.

Along with lots of environmental info, amazing environmental pictures and videos (These videos show the beauty of this world and what life can be like if people take the time to appreciate life’s true beauty).

Let us all strive for a greener/brighter future by helping to create a solid foundation for future generations to build upon, so we can hand them a beautiful world, filled with never ending awe and wonders!!

Where peoples differences and uniqueness are accepted, where we all live as one, helping one another so that we can all play our own mysteriously beautiful melodies in the never ending, awe inspiring, song of life :-)

I truly have faith in humanity and believe that someday our lives and the world in which we live will truly be transformed for the better.

Answer 9

typical socialists.

first label someone. then use the label to help convince the undecided they (deniers)are extreme or ill informed.

nice try.

stand on the facts (or lack of them) instead of confusion, half truths and outright lies.

Answer 10

It's called arguing by intimidation. The word is carefully used to make that connection.