global warming "Deniers"?

Edit --

I see many people answering are confused about the use of the term "denier". It was originally used in reference to scientists who had evidence contradicting the "man caused catastrophe". It has not been used (in the press) to refer to people who are simply "obstinate" through ignorance, or "liars" through intent.

--

If someone or some group has a valid hypothesis and data which supports that hypothesis, then it is not only unfair, but fool hardy to call them "deniers". The scientists questioning anthropogenic global warming have both of these. Their skepticism or disbelief is well founded in scientific study and debate.

But what's worse, is that the term "denier" is even applied to the scientists who believe that global warming is happening, and is caused by man. But how can they be "deniers"? The simple truth is that you would be hard pressed to find many scientists who would support the Al Gore "doom and gloom", 8° C temperature rise in the next 100 years. Science tells us that the actual temperature increase over the last 100 years was between 0.1 and 0.3 °C, and the temperature rise in the next 100 years is likely to be about the same. No sane person would be worked up over such a small rise, but the "doom sayers" need people in a frenzy, so they ridicule anyone that doesn't support the extremist views.

Of course, calling them "deniers" is especially foolish, considering the extreme and destructive policies the "doom sayers" are advocating to avert a prediction of catastrophe, one which very few scientists support. BTW, it is valid to call these persons "doom sayers", because they have made ridiculous statements and predictions without any (or poorly founded) scientific basis.

And who came up with the term "denier" in the first place? A "doom sayer". And who uses it? Newsmen (who promote the doom saying), and "doom sayers". You will simply not find scientists calling other scientists "deniers".

And why does it continue? Various environmental groups, activists, and politicians have deluded themselves about global warming. They have even gone so far as to fabricate science (e.g. the "hockey stick" graph), and put words in the mouths of the scientists they are supposed to be listening to. But they stopped listening. They covered their ears, shut their eyes, and congratulated themselves for proving what they set out to prove. They have so convinced themselves that the sky is falling, that any scientist who says the sky isn't falling, is instantly viewed as being insane; a "denier". Just as how Columbus was a flat-earth denier, and just as how Armstrong is a fake moon landing denier.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. There is a serious ongoing scientific debate and effort to explore global warming, and there is a fanatical and hysterical propaganda drive to promote global catastrophe. The scientific debate is kept out of the public view, while the propaganda drive is very public. The propagandists have declared the debate over, but the scientists have not. Eventually, the global warming "dooms day" will become clearly exaggerated, and the propaganda will be replaced with a more balanced and scientific education.

The best metaphor I have for global warming is this:

I have a chocolate pudding pie for you. It's the best pie you'll ever eat; everyone says so. Just don't ask why there are bits of grass in it, and it smells sort of like .... manure.

Yes it has become a religion and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.Think of how much money certain groups will make off of the hype.Think of all that government money going to "research".Besides there is only so much you can do ,after all whoever controls the weather controls the world.Fear is the best political motivator. Climate change is part of the nature of the planet.Common sense is to have clean energy but until there is a buck in it all that happens is talk,talk and more talk.Government regulations,fines and penalties(gotta get that bailout money somewhere) We certainly need clean air and water .I am the original recycler and I don't waste energy just like many other people.I use energy and don't go for the "guilt" trip of doing so. I have a problem with Gore the guru who flies around a fuel guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a bigger one to fly back and forth to California.Remember her saying she wants to save the planet,yeah she flies we walk.We can all start by using the new energy saving light bulbs. Oh I forgot they are the ones with mercury in them.Oh,well seems like a good idea at the time. I guess you all heard that some genius politician wanted to tax cow farmers for any that own more than 100 for emitting "methane gas" yeah it's true.Can we bottle it instead?Or on second thought send some from the bull to that politician as he knows the B.S. when he sees or smells it.

The term is used to stop people from being able to debate the issue. They know the science of "global warming" is weak, especially when the planet has been cooling since 1998. So berating any dissension is the next step.

Ironically, now the scientific community is saying it won't get warmer until about 10 years from now. This gives them more time to come up with bogus studies to prove humans cause climate changes. No grants are given to study natural climate change. Apparently there's no interest in that.

Just remember that being a skeptic is good. Following the mainstream lies about this subject shows pure ignorance and laziness.

The advocates use bad science and bad legislation to put extra taxation on energy causing the prices of fuel and all energy to go up.

Be sure to thank them for the price increases of fuel and food.

People with legitimate questions or concerns about the subject of global warming deserve respectful answers. There certainly are areas where the science isn't clear, not everyone has had time to adequately study the subject (thus, they are understandably behind the learning curve that others have already climbed), and there are different legitimate approaches to how we should respond.

But sadly, there is also a contingent of individuals on the net (some here) who are disingenuous (at best) or simply too ignorant of the subject to write a coherent thought or understand the most basic concepts of science, yet they continually and arrogantly act like they know far more than all the worlds legitimate scientists. They refuse to accept credible sources for scientific evidence and they frequently insult people who do actually understand science and try to explain it to others. For this contingent the word "denier" is about the kindest term that could be used.

When a new person comes along with a question that's already been answered and dealt with numerous times, that writer is sometimes considered one of these "denier" types, when they may actually have legitimate questions. If newcomers would be a little more humble in how they ask their questions (vs. the frequent arrogant assertions and belittlement of real scientists) they would probably get a much more respectful answer.

Alarmist or doomsayer is hardly comparable to calling someone a denier, with the explicit addition at times that equates them to Holocaust deniers. As if wanting more data or a single prediction of the IPCC to prove true before we give the UN total control is somehow demented or irrational.

Saying that scientists believe in global warming is untrue, most scientists will acknowledge that the Earth is in fact cooler now than in recent years and will likely continue to get cooler for at least a decade. Google Pacific Decadal Ocillation and inform yourself, you don't need to have a PhD to read a chart or think for yourself. They used to claim the air was warming the ocean which would lead to increasing warming, yet somehow the ocean has managed to cool itself instead. Hmm.

When it was warming, the consensus view of scientists was only that we are very likely to be causing some of it, but even that was debatable.

Aidan, how about a link to the survey?

If you look at Al Gore's hockey stick chart from his movie, you notice there is a large gap between the lines for CO2 and temperature. What you don't see is that if you overlap those two lines, it's clear that CO2 only goes up after warming causes the oceans to release more CO2. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299...

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/...

This doesn't mean CO2 hasn't caused part of the warming, but despite CO2 levels rising faster, temp peaked in 1998, something the IPCC at the time said could not happen.

And yes, I'll even say that the Earth getting warmer isn't at all a bad thing as they claim. It's happened three times in recent history, the Bronze Age warming lasted 2000 years and led to the start of civilization, the Roman Warm period led to big crop surpluses and the expansion of their empire, and the Medieval Warm period was so good for humans that they had enough excess wealth to build huge cathedrals throughout Europe.

As CindyW states, CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, .04% of the total atmosphere is CO2.

The fact is, the IPCC was established expressly to study the impact humans are having on warming. Obviously, if they found none they'd be disbanded. The research grants are given out based on what the political entity decides it wants to study, few scientists can fund their own research at this level. If the study disproves current theory then of course that will impact the chances of additional grants. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, that's just the way the world works.

They use the term denier to try and minimize our arguments. They need to do this as they can not debate the issue on merit (we win every time).

As for the consensus, that was a lie propagated a while back. Of course, they throw out the lie, then repeat it until the uninformed believe it. there is not consensus. Here is an article explaining the origin of the consensus lie.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/...

You will find many of the brightest and well renowned scientist are "deniers".

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

http://billwangard.blogspot.com/2007/05/agw-denier...

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_c...

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/research-o...

So when you hear someone using the consensus as an argument supporting AGW, you know they are full of s%^!.

mainly because people that believe global warming is caused by man believe it is the single largest threat mankind has ever faced..

that left unchecked it will result in an unlivable planet.. and that anyone that contributes is in the lack of action guilty of genocide of a level unknown before...

they fervently believe that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem..

_______________________

there is no clear evidence that they are wrong.. nor clear undeniable scientific fact that they are right.. in their opinion IF by some freak accident they are wrong.. and we go completely green we have done no harm.. but if they are right and we do nothing the world is doomed..

this has led most to a point of almost religious belief that action is required NOW and anyone who doesn't see and agree with them is regarded almost as a heretic..

also it is a lot easier to proof your argument by discrediting those opposing you then by any other method.. watch any court case.. the first thing any lawyer does is discredit the other sides witness's

A denier is simply someone who is in denial. Not all people who doubt man-made global warming are deniers. Many are simply ignorant of the scientific evidence. However, when you're ignorant and yet sure that global warming is a myth, then you're in denial of your ignorance.

A skeptic keeps an open mind. When you see the evidence that proves the Sun isn't responsible for the current warming and you continue to refuse to accept it, you're no longer a skeptic, you're now in denial.

At this point the evidence supporting man-made global warming is so overwhelming that it's almost impossible to be a true skeptic. Once you're aware of the data, it should convince you.

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-a...

If you're ignorant of the evidence, that's fine, but then you shouldn't form an opinion on the issue either way. If you're both ignorant and rejecting the conclusions of the scientific experts, then that's a pretty clear case of denial as well.

So the reason most people who doubt the theory are called 'deniers' is that if you doubt the theory, the odds are very good that you're in denial.

Aiden B,

Could you provide a link to that survey, the journal it was published in, the year, the questions, and the methodology?

That's what i've been asking all along and you know what when i ask about gobal warming stuff there are still many deniers about this issue despite the fact that the debate between countries is already over and that the conclusion of that debate was man-made activities causes global warming. For them(skeptics) to think that way is what i really don't understand. I think they will only realize things when a category 10 storm destroyed their house or when their water supply has ended, then they only start to ask questions about the environment.

"It's DIFFICULT to get a MAN TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING IF HIS SALARY DEPENDS UPON HIS NOT UNDERSTANDING IT." -upton sinclair