Why is it that if you are skeptical, that you are called a denier?

Answer 1

It's easier to shoot the messenger than the message. If you make fools of those who note inconsistencies, you don't need deal with them.

There's too much money involved for folks like algore to allow discussion. Follow the money.

Answer 2

Um, considering the lack of proof to any of the theories of AGW, how can deniers of AGW be deniers? So far all we have is the Earth coming out of a cool down and CO2 is increasing. If man was actually causing this round of climate change we would have seem more significant temperature increase then we have had. Also, you are calling people who believe the Earth is warming but don't believe in AGW as skeptic is not what the rest of the AGW supporters do.

Answer 3

Maybe you should read the dictionary, because denying can also mean denying another theory and that other theory may be correct. It is like saying Hitler is God and others call him Satan, well you get the picture.
And it's funny people say that climate change is brand new, in fact we couldn't even record that data from such long ago, even soil samples can't detect what was really there. They have even tried living and bacterial (Carbon-14) atoms scanning, lately they found out that those atoms affected were dispersed due to such long ages that passed by since they existed. So that one evidence of global warming that was wrong
The second one is that, we didn't have satellites long ago, nor any evidence.
Mega storms aren't anything new, just we build houses in the bad areas, if we built a city in the middle of the Atlantic, you expect a hurricane to hit it.

Answer 4

Because they aren't skeptics in the usual sense of the word and don't deserve the label.

Pretty much every skeptic on the planet accepts that global warming is happening because that is what the evidence indicates and skeptics follow the evidence.

Answer 5

Skeptics aren't called deniers! People who refuse to admit to a problem when it is obvious that one exists are called deniers. And global warming does exist--almost every credible scientist involved in meteorology concurs that mean global temperatures are rising, and that humans are contributing to most of it--not volcanoes--not flatulent livestock!

Answer 6

Vernacular and simplicity, probably.

People in this section tend to be either beleivers or skeptics, there's only really one person that I would consider to be an outright denier.

In truth, many beleivers are skeptics; skepticism being "a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the scientific method".

I'm a skeptic because I'm a scientist, I question all apsects of global warming. If I described myself as such on here, many people would interpret that as meaning I didn't accept the theory of manmade global warming.

Don't forget, if you're a 'beleiver' you're also an alarmist, Chicken Little, environMENTAList and a whole host of other terms - it works both ways.

Answer 7

It's simply a shorthand term that implies the person is simply rejecting sound evidence, rather than exercising healthy, rational skepticism.

Which is a good assessment of those who try to make a pretense that there is still a debate about the existance or causes of global warming. Those are established facts. And rejecting (denying) established and verified facts isn't healthy skepticism--it's simply foolishness.

Answer 8

You're not. These are two groups of people, fairly easy to identify.

Skeptics look at data and ask questions about it's interpretations. They aren't convinced that global warming is man made, but are interested in looking at the science.

Here are questions from skeptics:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ao80OT9BBXSJl68ecJZyhJjty6IX?qid=20070903172909AAQDtmQ&show=7#profile-info-pZi3HXdnaa

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqFp9Kt9tTcp0mLweC_TjhXty6IX?qid=20070904212750AAvspHM&show=7#profile-info-AbKlmhNPaa

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsHwZe9ET2ycD2y1q3qBMi3ty6IX?qid=20070829095959AAJ9V6A&show=7#profile-info-230d66f169ccfda2f0cab201d1f0417eaa

Deniers are not "skeptical". They simply reject the idea that global warming is mostly man made. They have no interest in the data, except to twist it to support their position.

Here are some questions from deniers:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Atw2mu4HaemT9tiQXQNElpTty6IX?qid=20070821180649AAkeOec&show=7#profile-info-sSvPEf97aa

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsHwZe9ET2ycD2y1q3qBMi3ty6IX?qid=20070830080349AAPEJSe&show=7#profile-info-cDdzxP1yaa

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsKrU2Ag4W0GNd.NtVXgMnLsy6IX?qid=20070807103957AAe1Vxj

Note especially, the best answers selected for the questions. Answers with no serious content selected as best answer are the easiest way to identify a denier here.

In the real world, Richard Lindzen is a skeptic. Senator Inhofe is a denier.

Answer 9

The Skeptics (or deniers if you prefer) have chosen to finely divide themselves based on their percieved nuance that there are shades of gray among them. A similar example is Lowell Ponte, the originator of the Skeptic/Denier movement. Ponte likes to say he is a "National Socialist, not a Nazi".

The scientists usually refer to them as contrarians, but that's a pretty clumsy term. Ponte's term is probably more accurate.

Answer 10

Cause most of these people are religious fanatics and they look at you the same a way a church would look at a heretic. In the real science world you are supposed to ask questions and to be skeptical. The more we ask, the more we learn.

Answer 11

People trying to push global warming don't want anybody questioning them. by some elitists it's a way to get into power, by those that hate America and anything western they can put down our nation with all of its contributions to humanity by saying all this caused global warming.
If any of us are skeptical and dare to look at the past climate history of the Earth and see that the climate has been changing for a long time we are then a threat to these people and their agenda is in danger.
That's why.