2007-08-31 06:37:04 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Only people who believe use the word denial or deniers.
Those who 'believe' subscribe to subjective science, or science that is determined by a majority opinion of like minded scientist. There is no objective science that supports man made global warming. No one can predict the future, no one can say that it will be warmer in 5 years.
Believers are 100% certain that there is warming and man is the cause.
By definition then, deniers are people who ate 100% certain that global warming isn't happening.
Since there is no proof that global warming is man made or not, how can anyone say that global warming is real or not?
The correct term would be skeptic, as no one has any objective data to prove either position.
The term denier is a derogatorily term to associate those who don't accept the believers point of view to holocausts deniers. This is arguing by intimidation, not science.
2007-08-31 07:51:17 · answer #1 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Which political group supports GW, the Right or the Left? Which group are the "true believers" and deride anyone who disagrees with them as stupid, ignorant, bigoted, deniers of "truth". A consensus of opinion did not make all the people who believed in a Flat Earth right, nor all those who stated that the sun went around the Earth. A consensus may be forced by cutting off funding to those who disagree, having them fired, refusing to publish their articles, encouraging people to laugh at them. Scientists quickly learn to toe the political line when their jobs are threatened.
Then you must ask why does that political group or type of person push so hard for belief in GW and the draconian laws and higher taxes it would take to make an imagined difference in GW? Is it power to make laws that control people? Is it the money from taxes that can be used in buying votes from the terminally ignorant voters? Is it the personal fortunes to be made trading carbon credits and investing in control technology?
Then study the Holocene, get the facts from the other side, see if the GW supporters can explain how this warming is different from all previous warmings, see if the opposition has facts and explanations too. The climate has been getting warmer since medieval times, why is the last 100 yrs different or could it simply be a continuation of a natural trend? Explain the warming during the time the Vikings settled in Greenland and how today's warming could not be caused the same way. Explain the warming 10,500 yrs ago that led to 7,500 yrs of a much warmer climate than today. Why can those natural causes not be applied today?
The others are right in that this political group uses the words "denier" and "denial" to spin their arguments to make it seem that what they say is established fact. They want to make people believe that subjective opinion is more true than objective opinion. This is a tactic they also use in politics, calling their opponents hate-mongering, bigoted, ignorant, stupid extremists.
You think, you decide, just don't dismiss what has been said in answer to your question.
2007-08-31 18:16:46 · answer #2 · answered by Taganan 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Oooh Trevor, you took the words right out of my mouth! Me, Im a skeptic. I am not a denier. I do believe that Global Warming is not a man-made phenomenon but rather part of a global pattern to which we are contributing in some small way. This summer for example. It is not caused by global warming. We are not going to have a mini ice-age this winter. These phenomena are scientifically impossible in the timescales we have been quoted.
There is a deeper geological engine driving these weather patterns than simply man's footprint. We are not helping the situtation, but we are not the sole cause either. Sometimes you have to examine the science deeply and see beyond political rhetoric and the need for taxation to support societal wants to find the true story. Sometimes, you have to go very deep indeed!
Nay sayers unite!
Nessie
2007-08-31 17:55:33 · answer #3 · answered by merton.moonsilver 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Climate denial" is apparent, for example, in Sen. Inhofe's website. If you read and carefully analyze what is said there, it is apparent that it is intentionally written to mislead---the arguments are so carefully exaggerated that it is clear that the writer does not believe what is written. In other words, it is propaganda.
Milder examples of "denial" are some of the fallacious arguments that keep popping up on this site. The worst may be the ad hominem and tu quoque statements about Al Gore.
Then there's a continuum of arguments that shade from ignorant obstructionism into genuine skepticism, relating to the world-wide GW conspiracy, the various possible natural forcings being dominant, and the uncertainties of measurement and predictions about the future.
The scientific aspects of GW are, of course, open to revision like all scientific propositions, and the political aspects should be central to our political discussions.
2007-08-31 18:37:23 · answer #4 · answered by cosmo 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Opposing the theory of manmade global warming are skeptics and deniers, most are skeptics, a small number are deniers.
The skeptics question the scientific evidence, put forward alternative explanations, substantiate their arguments with reasoning and intelligence. The deniers simply state 'it's not happening' but are unable to say why.
A skeptic will refer to credible research and publications whereas a denier will primarily refer to unreliable and factually inaccurate websites. Skeptics use facts, deniers use opinions.
The skeptic listens to all sides of an argument, takes on board what others are saying and forms an opinion based on all available evidence. The denier shuts out anyone and anything that doesn't conform to their way of thinking.
Skeptics have a valuable contribution to make to the debate about global warming and climate change, deniers don't.
2007-08-31 17:36:54 · answer #5 · answered by Trevor 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
"climate denial" is a very good term to try and insult, belittle or discredit anyone else with an opposing point of view.
Anyone I see or hear using such terms in my view has lost the argument and has zero credibility in my eyes.
2007-09-02 20:22:55 · answer #6 · answered by Jack 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
denial is indeed a term used to confuse people.
the term "denier" implys you know something and refuse to believe it.
now the label is becoming common use. the next step is to twist it.
"are GW deniers the same people who deny the holocaust happened?"
(which is being to happen)
that way you can distract, sidetrack, and put skeptics, or rejectionists on the defensive.
or as jello said, science through intimidation.
2007-08-31 16:26:56 · answer #7 · answered by afratta437 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Excessive scare news storys, poor or factually lacking news storys and lack of understanding
2007-09-01 01:48:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
By that stage it stops being a rational argument and becomes more of a religious one.
2007-09-02 10:06:42 · answer #9 · answered by fyzer 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is NO proof an apple falls if you drop it, but it just does!
.
2007-08-31 20:34:39 · answer #10 · answered by Soupalognon Y 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋