Last question for the deniers.?

Question

I recieved an answer from someone who said...

"I recommend that you stop the name calliing with terms such as "deniers" or people are going to start calling you names."

Well that is interesting. What is wrong with calling deniers, "deniers"? Do they not deny anthropological global warming or just global warming? They deny it, so they must be deniers, no? It's simply the honest truth so what is wrong with it?
Of course AGW is the truth too and they don't like that either. Is there pattern here?

Shayna, if it is natural as you "believe" then what is the mechanism behind this natural process? You claim we should do something about the problem, science has told you what that problem is but you don't accept that as the reason. It's too inconvenient for you isn't it, so you hope for somebody to tell you a reason that doesn't change what is familiar to you? Sorry but the problem is an excess of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere put there primarily by the burning of greenhouse gases and the deforestation of the land. No matter how much you deny the truth, that is the problem.

Answer 1

Deniers find the term offensive because they want to be called 'skeptics' to imply that they're critical thinkers.

Unfortunately, in most cases this is inaccurate. With the level of scientific evidence supporting the AGW theory it's very hard to be a skeptic at this point. Either you accept the scientific evidence or you deny that it exists.

This is why I keep asking the deniers to explain the scientific facts. If AGW is wrong, why is the upper atmosphere cooling? Why is the planet warming more at night than during the day? Why has a 37% increase in CO2 to levels higher than they've been for millions of years having a negligible effect on the rapid warming which is coincidentally happening at exactly the same time? What else could possibly be causing the current warming? Etc. etc.

Deniers rarely even attempt to explain these scientific observations, because they can't. They'll claim the current warming is related to the Sun, but you show them that solar output has decreased as global warming has accelerated, and they refuse to drop this clearly incorrect claim. Even solar physicists say the current warming is not due to the Sun, but deniers deny the scientific reality.

Then in answering your question the deniers say there's no solid evidence supporting AGW. That's obvious denial, because I've listed just a small amount of the evidence above.

A skeptic keeps an open mind. When you prove that the current warming isn't due to the Sun, a skeptic accepts this. When you prove the surface temperature record is accurate, a skeptic accepts this. When you provide evidence supporting AGW, if a skeptic can't disprove this evidence, he accepts it.

When you deny the evidence for no good reason, you're a denier.

Answer 2

To deny something is to refuse to accept something that is. We are skeptics. Skeptics will not readily accept anything without proof. So far everything I have seen presented by the Man Made Global Warming claimants, is so deliberately misleading that I have not only had my skepticism re-enforced but I now am of the opinion that this is a deliberate sham.

I cite such things as that ridiculous "hockey stick" chart as well as the heavy reliance on "projections" that are more science fiction than science. So much has been flashed before the public with no context that it could only be for the purpose of scaring people. Nothing scientific about it.

We, the skeptics of the world, were just going about our business. It was the Man Made Global Warming people who began making wild claims about rising sea level and other dooms day claims. It is they that are calling for radical changes to our lives.

Why should I have to prove anything? The burden of proof is on those making the wild claims. I am simply taking what they offer as proof and really investigating it. The only way to find out if a theory is true is to make every attempt to disprove it.

Now you want to call those still awaiting proof that is indisputable "deniers". I do not consider myself a denier. I consider myself normal. A normal man with a normal amount of skepticism and a normal desire for proof.

Many seem totally sold on the theory of Man Made Global Warming. I have been in contact with some through email. I ask what convinced them and they send me "proof". When I take the very proof they send me and show them the flaws and deliberate obfuscations in it, they only get angry and call me names or pretty much take the "well even if it is not true we should still ...blah, blah blah. No, if it is not true, we should not change our behavior.

Pretty much all of the so called scientific proof I have seen is deliberately misleading. Why do you suppose that is? Why are they trying to shut up the skeptics? Why do they refuse to permit peer review? Here is an example of what I mean by deliberately misleading information.

A paper was published on the subject claiming MMGW to be real. A statement has been presented in the press that many of the world's greatest scientists have read this report and concurred that everything they read was factual.

Closer scrutiny discovered that no scientist had been presented with the entire report. In fact most only received and reviewed a couple of pages. What they were saying is I read page 101-103 and nothing I read was not true.

Well, that is a bit misleading isn't it? The initial claim made it sound like the world's leading scientists read the report not one or two pages of the report. This is the kind of nonsense that passes for proof. Anyone who presents misleading reports like this is not trying to inform you. They are trying to fool you.

Merry Christmas!

Answer 3

The fact that you call them Deniers shows that your belief is like a religion. There are some answers Here that are also more "Religious" in nature like yours. Like yours, they also serve no purpose other than trying to further ones religion. Many answers I see that question the AGW theory are based on valid observations and data. I find these interesting and cause for investigation.

I guess I am a denier because I am older and have seen the "experts" be wrong so many times before.

Answer 4

Actually, everyone is a denier to some way or another. Your a denier of the Theory that GW is natural while I'm a denier of AGW. In the end, it really doesn't matter as long we get the truth which we will someday. My opinion is that we aren't causing the majority of it(yes, we are helping somewhat) but ya.....my source is below. Have fun =)

Answer 5

You really like the reactions you're getting to your questions, don't you, gwen? :D

Call me a denier if you want. It doesn't really matter one way or another to me. You could be considered a 'denier', too, depending on the perspective of the person using the term.

You believe man is causing global warming; I believe it's a natural process. The truth is, does it matter which is causing it? If we bring it down to the basics, the sea levels will rise, and we should be working towards saving lives, and allowing the discovery of methods to 'stop' the warming trend become second priority.

*What does it matter what the reason is? It could be because the sun is getting hotter. Our orbital path may be getting nearer to the sun. I don't know. It's not 'inconvenient' for me to believe that AGW doesn't exist. Nothing about the things that need to be done to reduce the pollution levels are 'inconvenient'. You are just here rehashing the same questions over and over again, and getting the same responses over and over again. We're not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change ours. It is that simple, gwen. YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND I BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE. It really shouldn't be any more complicated than that.

So let's get down to what it is we DO agree on - the ocean levels will rise, and steps need to be taken to relocate cities from the coastlines in order to save lives. And then while we are doing that, we need to be readying ourselves to adapt to the global changes because of this warming trend. Of course, we need to also take steps to reduce our reliance on natural resources, many of which are NOT renewable. What sort of tragedy are we facing when there is no more coal or oil left, and we're not prepared to adapt to that?

Someone also made a point somewhere that the 'greenies' (ie, AGW supporters, like yourself) are generally hypocritical in that they still use our electricity, still drive around in vehicles, yada yada. If you think that we're going to destroy the earth, then why don't you and the rest of those who believe like you go off and live in the forest somewhere like our hunter-gatherer ancestors who had very little impact on the environment? You don't because that's more of an 'inconvenience' for you than the 'inconvenience' of my beliefs are to me.

I get sick of this issue simply because we all spend so much time reiterating the same old stuff, over and over, but yet while we're doing this, NOTHING is being done to help resolve anything. We are never all going to agree 100%, nor should we. Often disagreements have brought about great change, at least in cases where the parties involved were mature and wise enough to listen to one another, agree on the major points, and work together to make the changes, instead of bickering about the insignificance of pointless arguments such as 'why is it happening?' Those arguments do nothing except back people into corners, because NO ONE has all the answers. Not even our scientists agree that AGW does in fact exist. And I DON'T CARE if 75% (or 35%, or 99%) agree, there are ALWAYS going to be a number that don't.

Again, who cares in the end? The ones who will be shaking their head at the death toll, and those who are still trapped and dying, that's who! Either way, the warming is not going to be that detrimental to our world and our society. It will change it, but it will not destroy it. The hole in the ozone layer? Maybe the Earth is creating an escape for the buildup of the pollution, just ejecting it out there into space where it will be harmless, before it recloses the hole and everything settles down on Earth again. Theories! They're all theories!

Let's reduce pollution. Let's stop clearcutting our forests. Let's build electric cars. Let's build electric trains. Let's use air travel less. Let's recycle and reuse. Let's begin better planning of our cities by building a windmill, and then building a neighbourhood around it, where all homes are outfitted with solar panels, and the neighbourhoods are easily accessed via mass transit.

Irregardless of AGW, pollution is a major problem in our world. Taking steps to reduce it is something that anyone with a grain of commonsense would support.

Edit: Taken from Dana's post -

"Why has a 37% increase in CO2 to levels higher than they've been for millions of years . . ."

It's statements like THIS that cause some of us to be skeptics. How in hell can we claim that CO2 levels are higher today than they've been for millions of years?! Don't you see the obvious lack of logic and reasoning in that statement? We haven't been on Earth for that long, so how can we possibly know for 100% certain that this claim is true?

Answer 6

The reason the word denier is offensive is because it was intentionally coined (not by you) to relate to Holocaust deniers. It is just another demonstration that GW is more of a political phenomena than science.

Answer 7

If you promise that this is your last question then here is an answer.

Few deny a warming trend. In fact, as recent data indicates that several other planets in this solar system are also warming (all without our assistance), such as Mars losing it's polar ice, warming is a natural cycle. What is in dispute is the cause.

Really, I hope this is not your last question as I enjoy reading you endless misinterpretation and spinning of the facts, all in attempt to get me to limit my energy use. It is ironic that in your attempts you are actually forcing my increased use of energy in having to type these messages.

Have a good day and don't forget to lay in a good supply of sunscreen.

Answer 8

They stopped calling us warmers when so much evidence showed that it has warmed and is warmer now than ever. They cant call us AGWs because that's just stupid although they could call us believers.

Subjectivity is what kills any credibility amongst deniers so keep digging your own holes. Soon enough you guys will have so many diverse theories that you will contradict yourself without the help of the many other deniers.

Answer 9

I AM a denier. And proud of it.

I deny:
That man is contributing any significant amount.
That CO2 is the big evil gas.

I have researched till my fingers are ready to fall off.

And I firmly believe:
The globe has been warming for 8-12000 years.
The ocean has been rising for 9-12,00 years.
The intensity of the sun dictates our temperature.
Conservation is smart. Solar power is smart.
Wasting money and resources on "Chicken Little" causes (acid rain, wetlands concerns, ozone repletion, global warming) is socially destructive.

Answer 10

Because terms like denier belong to the language of religion, and not the language of science. Should we call you a member of the faithful?