How would you define global warming "alarmist" and "denier"?

Question

Personally I would say it's fair to call Al Gore somewhat of an alarmist. For example, he mentions that sea levels could rise hundreds of feet without discussing the likelihood or time frames. While the scenario is possible, it's important to provide this context.

In general, an "alarmist" is someone who predicts unrealistic and alarming scenarios. Since all indications are that scientists' predictions are too conservative, I would not certainly not call them "alarmists".

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiBHBPhyRNMzr41QhpHCsh7ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071210195739AAdkrj2

I would say that a "denier" is someone who refuses to acknowledge scientific data. Especially when they specifically request data, are provided data, and continue to ignore it. A good example here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar3uYF61NoLWT9ZHLARiBxHty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071210112240AAaUubJ&show=7#profile-info-sSvPEf97aa

How would you define these terms? To whom do they apply?

Answer 1

To me the essence of a denier is captured in BP CEO John Browne's comment:
"It would take a purposely defiant person" to dismiss the climate change threat and the growing consensus worldwide "that precautionary action is necessary and need not destroy economic life."

There needs to be a second definition to cover the pros.

Denier: n. a. A purposely defiant person stuck in the denial of global warming. b. A compensated agent of the oil industry, often deceitfully presenting themselves under the marketing term, "skeptic."

So what about people on the ends who believe one side or the other, but are open to new data?

Here's a dicionary definition of skeptic: "One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions."

Aren't people in the middle the true skeptics, because they haven't trusted either side enough to make a choice? Is it appropriate for members of either of the more polarized camps whose minds are made up to co-opt the term "skeptic"? Is it an attempt, no doubt deliberate, to position the oil lobby as the camp for reasonable, skeptical people in the middle to align with?

Answer 2

Dana, why did you answer your own question?

I do however agree with your definition of alarmist, since I was going to define it the same way. If I ever referred to any of the AGW believers on here as alarmists, I think some of them on here are. It's more the news media that are calling an alarm and when you want to create major bills that could effect peoples lives on scientists theory of whats causing the climate to change. That does seem a bit hasty in a lot of peoples eyes.

A true denier in my opinion is a person that doesn't believe the climate is changing at all. I just don't feel it's right that one group of scientists call another group of scientists deniers if they come up with a different theory for why the climate is changing. You see true deniers on here. The ones that don't believe the climate is changing at all.

I have one more definition for you: Fanatic - Merriam Websters - marked by excessive enthusiasm and often uncritical devotion. I have used this term to describe some of the AGW believers on here. Do you see anywhere in that definition that it's a bad thing to be called?

I don't even mind being called a skeptic, since I'm skeptical about the climatologists claims of what is causing the planet's climate to change, since I know it has changed in the past.

PS. I know I said I wouldn't answer any more of your questions, but I couldn't resist this one.

Answer 3

Define Denier

Answer 4

An alarmist is someone who exaggerates data and preaches it nonstop in communications in order to strike fear in the people listening/reading. They also twist and manipulate data to try and prove their point.

A denier ignores data and the alarmists.

Skeptics disprove alarmists by providing data that disproves their data.

You can be considered an alarmist because you post on these boards nonstop in order to strike fear in the readers so your goal (a goal to be a supporter in some emotional argument) can be accomplished.

I am a skeptic because I do not believe that humans are causing an unstoppable greenhouse effect. It is clear that this is a campaign to line Al Gore's pockets with money, while hurting big oil (Dems vs Pubs).

There is no absolute proof that shows humans are causing this. The IPCC models are being proven wrong every day and all they state is that they are being too conservative because glaciers are melting from Greenland faster than ever in recorded history. Well, they couldn't accurately measure the glaciers until satellite imagery became available within the last 3 decades (while it was in a cooling cycle, to now, when it is in a warming cycle).

Until there is absolute proof and not just data that is constantly being disproved, I will probably stay on the skeptic side. So the argument continues.

Answer 5

An alarmist is one who fabricates and/or exaggerates. This label is not appropriate for AGW proponents and is used here in a derogatory way to cast doubt on credibility.

A realist is one who looks at the range of possibility and says “things might get really bad, here is how bad things might get, we should invoke the precautionary principle”

A denier is someone who, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, remains stuck at a mental threshold. The threshold beyond which one would have to admit to being wrong, admit that their paradigm is flawed; admit that one needs to rethink ideas and start over.

A skeptic is a free thinker who can move freely across the mental barrier when the evidence becomes strong enough. They have a strong enough sense of self and a strong enough mental framework of concepts and ideas to know that when they accept new scientific ideas the framework won’t collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

Answer 6

An alarmist is somone who says the world will end in 10 years and the sea levels will flood like 50 miles of coast in that time.

A denier is someone who says global warming just plan does not exist.

A skeptic is someone who knows the temperature is increasing but they believe that man is not the primary casue.

Answer 7

Wow! Clearly you just want to make political statement rather than to understand the science.

In the long run it doesn't matter if global warming is true or not, or if it is caused by man or not. The goal should be to identify sources of pollution, including green house gases and reduce them.

Liberals like you however use the environment as a political tool. Your interest is not to reduce ghg's, but to control them by controlling people and business.

Just like the gvmt's war on poverty, which as cost over 7 trillion dollars and created more poor than when the program started, the war on carbon will also cost trillions and just give us more than when the "war" started.

And again, if Hansens predictions are so accurate, and we know the effect of "global warming", then what's the problem telling us if it will be warmer next month, and six months from now. If global warming is real, then this shouldn't be a problem.

Why are you scared to tell us your predictions, and how you got to that conclusion?

Answer 8

Whether Al Gore is an alarmist or not, we should be grateful to him for compiling all the data from the 3000 plus scientists' theories on AGW and humans attributions. Deniers of AGW like the large oil corporations and car manufacturers selfishly deny AGW simply for monetary interests. Others like to deny in order to boost their egos by their arguments based on their slight knowledge.

Answer 9

I think those are good definitions.

I think it's alarming that there are even a small number of "deniers" out there still!!!!