Do you think AGW proponents are too harsh with deniers?

This is an answers forum. It's strength is not in opinions. People who come here looking for information should be given real information. I don't think anyone is harsh on deniers, merely we educate readers that there is nothing credible behind their opinions, and we guide people asking for information to the sites with real information. It is very important that readers understand that every institution that provides real information is on board. The so-called denyers always want to look just at one piece rather than the whole picture. They think they have poked some hole in the model, but don't read enough to realize that everything they point to has already been built into the models.

With any heated debate there will always be people on either side who are far too harsh.

Just from what I've seen it seems the proponents are a bit more moderate than the deniers, since usually to deny it you had to first go out of your way to find evidence to deny it, since the theory has support among MOST people (virtually none of the common media outlets today deny AGW). Taking this into account, there was usually some underlying factor, some emotional drive, to make them want to become deniers in the first place. Naturally, these people would then be comparatively more passionate about the issue. Of course this isn't true for everyone and I could list at least a few skeptics here on YA who are indeed moderate.

And yes, there are uneducated, emotion-driven extremists on the proponent side as well (the kind that literally do hate industrial progress, feel that AGW will make the world explode in a fireball, and would be quite happy to see the human species vanish altogether.) I hate these people as much as I hate the uneducated skeptics.

Yes I do feel AGW proponents are harsh and even rude to AGW skeptics. In fact you insist on labeling all of us as deniers when you know a lot of us are just skeptical of what caused the warming trend.

Edit: It bothers me when they call skeptics stupid and don't even think to criticize some of the AGW proponents questions on here that do only appear to be Al Gore worshippers. I know you know exactly what I'm talking about. They always state watch an "Inconvient Truth" like it's the holy grail of the AGW theory.

Again the alarmist belief system is skewed. So much has happen science Malthus thesis, it no longer has a premise. The advent of the Green revolution, and modern medicine has refrained his postulations almost to the point of nonexistence. "Death by civilization", that's a new one for me. I would argue just the opposite. To others that think man can't survive in harsh environments. I hate to tell you this, "that's the trade mark for mankind". The advocate camp as a whole doesn't express basic biology, ethics, nor science to a knowledgeable level. "It's what they want it to be, not what it is or what it can be"

I certainly try not to be harsh I try to post genuine information be polite even when replies are nonsense about NASA are liars NOAA are liars there's is no proof or its a communist plot or a green plot to run the world. I have certainly seen harsh comments from both sides these are usually short sharp and add nothing to the debate.

To a number of Jellos posts I posted clear evidence that showed his questions to be incorrect nothing harsh just information a number of these were suddenly deleted and then he blocked me, not really a big surprise, the slight surprise was to be blocked by Randell E the very same day for no reason, this certainly told me something I had suspected for a while!

Peter.ju

The Webster dictionary definition of "denier"

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definiti...

I see no reference to the holocaust in this and I certainly don't even think of that when i use the term, I also note that the word itself predates the holocaust by ~350 years

Mikira: I have to agree partly with your answer while "denier" comments on "plots and conspiracies and c02 not being a warming gas etc" are nonsense so are "believer" comments about "the end of the world, we are all going to die, the oceans are going to rise 100m"

The real estimates are not hard to find and are small and long term, that doesn't mean we and near future generation aren't going to have problems if we don't do anything, and those that suggest we don't need to do anything "caus' it's in the future and I don't care" clearly don't have kids and are still in their teens.

No.

Denier is the correct term. A skeptic is someone with a counter argument that is backed up with facts and logic.

These are people who refuse to do the work necessary to understand the science.

Whether they try and fail or don't bother to try, they also lack the cognitive ability to recognize their own lack of understanding.

They then have the hubris to claim the experts are wrong, rather than the humility to defer.

And to top it off their main objections are political.

It's dangerous and destructive obstruction.

In normal academic discourse they can simply be ignored.

In this case, however, they need to be confronted.

This applies to AGW as well as our current environmental problems in general.

As a disbeliever, I don't AGW proponents are harsh against us. Most of them dismiss us as idiots who are a tiny sliver of a percent of the population that doesn't even deserve recognition.

I don't think all of those terms we use against AGW proponents are mean or untrue. I believe they are slightly alarmist. They're not frauds or liars, they're just mislead. They're not Gore worshippers or hoaxers. Many, not all, are socialists (not an insult, but a description of their ideals). I think that some (small percentage) of AGW proponents exaggerate AGW as a bigger problem than it is as a tool for political power and gain of government control of the economy. I don't think they made it all up, but cleaning up streams and air doesn't get the huge support and government control as regulating the most common emission made by humans.

The truth is, the denialist camp is worldwide mostly concentrated on a area between the Rio Grande and Alberta.

No. The deniers in this forum are a waste of lead. There is no cost to giving them more respect than merited because their opinions don't matter. Do you throw pennies at "special" people? No, it's not politically correct. Let them live out the rest of their lives in ignorant bliss. Save your harsh criticism for bigger game.

First, the stupidity of a lot of doubter "questions" (which are often self-satisfied statements) is just amazing. The positions held by some are logically impossible, and outright stupid.

Nevertheless, i think any doubter, in saying that he doubts the science behind climate change, has a point. It takes advanced statistical analysis of multiple data sets on lots of parameters and processes to come up with a a mere probability of a range of temperature change.

How are you to personally check these scientific findings. And on top of that, science has been wrong before.

By presenting climate change as a given, rather than a risk, large amounts of people have been mobilized. Something actually happening is a lot more alarming than the sum of all things likely to happen.

The current debate between deniers and proponents is one where the scientists close discussion for lay people by shrouding the scientific doubts by faking absolute certainty, and i think it will backfire.

I think the doubt/denial should be met with a more honest story: a story that includes scientific doubt and risk prevention. Climate studies should focus more on the specific and the local, rather than explaining long term processes and abstract feed backs to an unwilling public.

In the netherlands, a popular radio-shows has what i think is a revolutionary research/awareness tool. Its called the pheno-line, and people are invited to deliver observations on nature, such as first blossoming of this-and-that-flower, first sighting of such and such butterfly, etc. These observations are gathered to construct a 'nature-calender', and shows a clear lengthening of the growing season.

I hope the website is any good to you, even if its in dutch: http://www.natuurkalender.nl/index.asp All right, its a greenie-thing, but still it works.

Right now, climate change seems to be the only thing that matters, all other environmental topics are subject to it.

The nuclear craze for instance, in my opinion is trading one risk for an even worse one. There hardly seems to be a debate on who is to carry these risks, who will be on the short end of things. The harsh attitude of Climate Change "believers" prevents a serious, open debate on who is to carry the risk and cost of climate policies.

Again, i feel that the majority of debaters here are in denial because they think anything less than a V8 is for *******. I truly wish the usual antagonists of Y-A would open a debate on the social consequences of climate policies, rather than ranting about solar cycles.

Sometimes we can be a bit harsh on them although most of us at least know to only be really harsh on those who we know have had access to the information that refuted the idea that global warming was a natural cycle.

Oh and I wouldn't be calling those who accept reality proponents of global warming, I'd rather it not be happening (i.e. I'd rather be wrong).

But anyway, the real world influence of global warming denialists has just gotten a lot less than it used to be.