Why are people who dont believe in global warming smeared as "deniers"? ?

here is the problem, Global warming does not exsist, it is a scam, and people who think it is real are worried that if people find out that it is not really happening, they will look stupid, so, to cover up their gullibleness

and their own stupidity, they resort to attacking anyone who says different. For fear of looking stupid themselves when they are proven wrong,

And as to there being a consensus, that is false too, I have family who are weather scientists, and they actually produces a video that rebuts everything al gore has said, and they have recieved death threats for it,

If the debate were settled, and there really was such a thing as global warming, than the decenters, would be ignored as nothing more than a small nuisence, but since global warming is not real, and the debate is far from being setteled, the global warming croud has to resort to death threats when they are challanged.

HMMMMMM

You dont see anyone on the right side of this threatening death to anyone who disagrees.

That should tell you what kind of people there are on the wrong side of this.

Furthermore, the whole Hoax of global warming is degisned to make it

so that America surrenders it's sovernity to the international community, the whole hoax is degisned to destroy america's economy, and to put america under the Yoak of bondage to the united nations.

It is what will eventually cause us to loose our freedom.

Those against global warming must stand up before it it to late, or we will soon find ourselves not a free people anymore.

amancalledchuda, I already explained to you that I only used the term in that second link because it was used in the original question. And I explained to you in the first link that I do not mean anything negative when I say it. I'm sure the same can be said for the vast majority of AGW proponents out there who also use it interchangeably with skeptic.

It is not a derogatory term. You would not be offended if I said that you deny that AGW is occurring, so why should you be offended if I make it into a noun? It has nothing to do with the holocaust.

I'm not a denier, I've woken up and gotten past the crap people are being spoon fed.

The holocaust did happen. GW isn't. Kind of like apples and ...potatoes comparing those two, yet I have seen people compare them, not you, but I have seen it. Someone say that someone who doesn't "believe" in global warming is liken to someone who says the holocaust didn't happen.

It's ridiculous.

There seems to be more proof that "global warming" is not a big deal. I'm totally with you on this. I guess I must be denying the holocaust too. Oh, well.

Indeed.

As I pointed out in a recent answer: when one side in a debate starts name calling, it’s usually because they’re losing the argument.

I actually had this question out with a Global Warming Proponent a while ago (see http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At... ) and he agreed with me, gave me the best answer to his question and agreed to stop using the term. He said…

“I'll agree to stop saying "denier"”

Sadly, he lied. Within a few weeks he was unrepentantly using it again (see http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj... )

Sadly, the truth is that there is very little evidence that we should be worried about the planet warming - *if* it warms. The Global Warming Proponent know this, so they have to resort to ad hominem attacks on the sceptics to try to bully them into silence.

It is contemptible. Oh, and *not* the way true science works, by the way.

Do you have a better term? I mean these guys sure aren't skeptical. Being skeptic means that one has an open mind; but the deniers, at least most of the ones that I've encountered, have completely thrown out years of scientific research and only believe in that random opinion found in some random blog or opinion page, or are just regurgitating some misleading cherry-picked bit of information that they overheard from some random conservative talking head.

If these guys were "skeptical," then they would be just as skeptical of that random opinion and cherry picked data. They might start asking questions such as, "Well, what do the scientists say?" or "I wonder who is paying for that opinion?" or "CO2 gas really does absorb infrared radiation, right?"

A better term for "denier" would probably be something like a "climate change action delayer". But this is just too bulky and I don't see this catching on.

The case for anthropogenic global warming is more conclusive today, and the physical science basis for it is not that difficult to understand. The largest compilation of current research on climate change is found in the IPCC reports, and their latest one came out last year. Most of the deniers will dismiss the entire reports without even taking a cursory look.

Here is the best explanation that I've found on why the deniers continue to deny science:

<Quote>"The more I've listened to global warming deniers, the more I've realized that for most of them, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SCIENCE. These guys don't go five minutes without attacking Al Gore or comparing climate activists to socialists who want to destroy capitalism. Deniers are part of a political culture that frames the world in terms of left and right, so they've absorbed global warming into that broader paradigm of partisan politics."[1]<End quote>

It is not a smear, a smear would be, 'delusionists'.

AGW Believers... AGW Deniers... what's so difficult to understand here?

Also... I think I could make a valid argument here that AGW believers are also laughed at, just listen to Sean Hannity's talk show sometime (or look around Y-Answers, this has one of the highest ratios of Deniers to Believers that I have seen anywhere on this subject, and there is plenty of ridicule thrown around both ways here).

So what exactly is your point? That no one should be smearing anyone else? I'm down with that, don't expect that to happen though.

We don't make it seem like you're denying the holocaust. We make it seem as though you're denying scientific facts, which you are.

Because calling them skeptics is an insult to skeptics.

As for the comparison to holocaust denial, the evidence that global warming is happening and caused by us is of about the same standard as the evidence that the holocaust occured (and global warming is going to cause us problems, even if a hotter world is better we're going to have to adapt to it).

It's politics. If you pretend something has been proven long enough other people will believe you. It works for politicians.

Demonizing your opponents is easier than having an actual discussion.