Climate-gate

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Why is it that you keep using the word "denier"?
Does it advance an understanding of the science?
Does it serve any other purpose than polarization and obfuscation?

I can't speak for billvon but the term denier is quite accurate as a descriptor of those who ignore the empirical evidence, the science and the reality of the situation that is around them and actively seek to undermine legitimate science for an agenda known only to them, or in support of a faith/belief that is against modern science.

Does it advance the understanding? maybe not understanding of the science BEHIND the warming... BUT it allows people to comprehend with one short term exactly where a person stands in regard to scientific pronouncements of global warming.

A "denier" is someone who ignores the facts in order to promote a self-belief, a known fallacy, or a position that is not supported by science or scientific facts, and therefore it DOES actually advance understanding!
It advances the understanding of the polarized position of the individual in question as well as assigns the individual so labeled to a group of people who's articulation is designed to obfuscate reality and undermine the scientific truth of the situation which is proven or shown (however you wish to address it) with empirical data.

Simply put: it is a term included into the modern lexicon of climate science or common slang that provides a short, concise word that allows the person hearing it to comprehend a series of things, which serves communication between people.

A person who will deny the scientific evidence should be proud of the term: the only reason to feel slighted by the term is the individual awareness realising that he/she/it knows the evidence to be true but then CHOOSES to act for the sake of ignorance and hindrance (or, again, obfuscation), which then not only sows FUD but also serves an agenda which is NOT empirical OR scientific...

There is NO obfuscation in the term "denier". It is perfectly concise, descriptive and well earned.

 

[sculptor]

F--k PC
Unless pc = precise communication?

 

[billvon]

F--k PC

OK deniers it is.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

F--k PC
Unless pc = precise communication?

whats wrong with Personal Computers?

 

[sculptor]

May i suggest that those who use the term "denier" are desperately seeking peer group identification by decrying "the other" much like using the word goyim.

While claiming the term to be an accurate descriptor of the other, it is, as intended(by reversal), actually an idealized descriptor of the self.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

May i suggest that those who use the term "denier" are desperately seeking peer group identification by decrying "the other" much like using the word goyim.
While claiming the term to be an accurate descriptor of the other, it is, as intended(by reversal), actually an idealized descriptor of the self.

You can suggest it, but it is not likely
Your assessment about intended reversal is fascinating and speaks volumes about your personal internal struggles and perspectives, however, it is not at all relevant nor is it accurate.

People who accept empirical data and the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting global warming aren't denying anything. They are taking a dispassionate look at what is available in terms of evidence, much like a jury, and coming to a conclusion that the evidence supports the scientific claims beyond the shadow of a doubt...
How is that like a so-called "denier" who sees the same evidence, but because of affiliation of a fanatical perspective, or perhaps because the money being pushed in to the FUD and obfuscation because of people like the Koch Brothers and big oil and industry ( see link here: http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay - Climatic Change.ashx
or link here: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html ) are pushing an agenda bought and paid for and with a vested interest in keeping the public uneducated.
Suddenly there is a belief that there might just be some controversy.

This is the problem of the disparity in the media and the attention the claims of the crackpots which are in collusion with (willingly or not) the big industry or oil that have a vested interest in promoting their perspective which directly contradicts the scientific evidence.

You will always find a human/person/whatever of such low moral character or low integrity (or incredible greed) to sell out their services for a purpose. See Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine controversy for proof.

So you can see that the term cannot be applied to the reverse camp. Only to the camp of people who repeatedly deny the scientific evidence, Empirical Data or the reality that is in front of them. These blinders are being studied by many today, and there are hundreds of reasons why a person would ignore the evidence to believe in something without basis, from religious beliefs to conspiratorial and anti-authority leanings.

What a person must do when they finally recognize that they are in denial about the empirical data, is determine the reasons WHY and work towards a solution that will allow them to accept the real world and even re-program their delusion, or contain their cognitive disability so that it can be worked around.

This is the power of the scientific method and empirical data. It SHOULD allow the uneducated the ability to see the truth in front of them.
Why would anyone ignore it? http://phys.org/news/2014-07-problem-false-science.html#firstCmt

misconceptions in the media which promote ignorance as well as an active campaign to obfuscate the truth, like the link shared above.

 

[billvon]

While claiming the term to be an accurate descriptor of the other, it is, as intended(by reversal), actually an idealized descriptor of the self.

As I mentioned, denier is accurate. If you would prefer a different, more politically correct term that describes someone who denies AGW, then I'd be happy to use it. If you can't think of one, it's sort of illogical to demand other people use it.

 

[sculptor]

OK

How about those who have drunk the agw cool-aide, and deny that a significant portion of the last century's warming was as likely caused by being in a grand solar maximum, and continued warming out of the last grand minimum(maunder---not dalton nor gleisberg).
These fools are also denying climate science, and the general bias of the astrophysicists.
So, then these AGW fools would also well be defined/labeled as "deniers".
Gets confusing.

Much like the term racists. Many fools claim that only white people can be racists. Which is not accurate.
It has much more to do with peer group identification, and "group think" than with scientific accuracy.

Except for a very few individuals, the term is meaningless, and should be employed very sparingly.

If you cannot refute the evidence of someone who holds a different viewpoint, using terms like "racist" or "denier" or "anti-semite", or "nazi", or "gook" or "slope", or whatever crazy term your cloistered band of fools chooses to define the other, and by so doing hope to diminish the personhood and credibility of the so labeled, offers up much more information about your groupthink than about the actual beliefs of the person so labeled.

The term may once have had a valid purpose, but by contamination through over usage by ignorant fools, has lost it's value.

The term is used far to often to serve any valid purpose, and I would recommend eschewing it, as, by using it, you identify yourselves with those with whom no sane, honorable or intelligent person would want to be identified.

 

[origin]

How about those who have drunk the agw cool-aide, and deny that a significant portion of the last century's warming was as likely caused by being in a grand solar maximum, and continued warming out of the last grand minimum(maunder---not dalton nor gleisberg).
These fools are also denying climate science, and the general bias of the astrophysicists.
So, then these AGW fools would also well be defined/labeled as "deniers".
Gets confusing.

It is only confusing if you mistakenly believe that climatologist have not taken the solar output into considieration in their models.

Much like the term racists. Many fools claim that only white people can be racists. Which is not accurate.
It has much more to do with peer group identification, and "group think" than with scientific accuracy.

If someone thinks that only caucasoids can be racist that would worse than foolish they would actually be better termed deniers!

If you cannot refute the evidence of someone who holds a different viewpoint, using terms like "racist" or "denier" or "anti-semite", or "nazi", or "gook" or "slope", or whatever crazy term your cloistered band of fools chooses to define the other, and by so doing hope to diminish the personhood and credibility of the so labeled, offers up much more information about your groupthink than about the actual beliefs of the person so labeled.

Of course you would need evidence to call someone a racist, denier, anti-semite or nazi. Gook or slope are racial epithets, so evidence is irrelevent. Calling someone who disagrees with over global warming a nazi is misapplying the term.

The term may once have had a valid purpose, but by contamination through over usage by ignorant fools, has lost it's value.

The term denier is a derogatory term but accurately describes someone who denies the evidence.:shrug:

 

[wellwisher]

A point that I have made before is, there is no scientific precedent for man-made global warming. There is only scientific precedent for natural causes resulting in swings in global temperature. The last ice age happened without human involvement demonstrating natural causes can do this. Manmade global warming has never happened before. Their own clock starts about 100 years ago. It is still at the prototype stage and not a done deal until the unique event is over. All the worse case scenarios have not yet come to pass.

Each time there is a media driven prediction to scare the herd, to scare leaders, into compliance, the theory of manmade global warming is being tested. When things do not materialize then we know the prototype is not working right. The prototype deniers want everyone to believe this is a done deal. They get very defensive if anyone creates reasonable doubt since they are used to no accountability even for lying.

As an analogy if I said I created a 6 passenger car that gets 120 mpg and has a range of 1000 miles this would be something that has no precedent. If it had the free ride being given to the global warming prototype, it would be blindly accepted by half the population as real. The skeptics would be called the deniers. The deniers would be pointing out how there is no precedent to extrapolate from and road tests are not adding up based on the marketing claims. While the bandwagon will be pointing to the state of the art manufacturing facility implies it has to be real. They do have good tools but that is besides the point. The claim has no basis in anything that currently exists in the data base.

Al Gore was a spokesman for the movement, who helped get it off the ground in huge way. Many of his claims were exaggerated and/or never materialized. He is not a scientist, but none of the global warming scientists formally denied any of his predictions, since they benefitted by the propaganda. I take this silence, up front, as meaning an alliance. They were not concerned about the truth, as much as the mercenary aspects of his sales pitch.

Each time the media presents a bad prediction, why don't the global warming scientists speak up right away, instead of wait until the predictions fails so they can separate themselves after the fact? They secretly hope it works but need wiggle room to escape accountability. The unholy alliance of political propaganda and silent science, until something goes wrong and they separate themselves, raises a red flag.

All the doom the gloom, and all the blaming of everyone weather event to climate change has no proof. This is what weather always does. The saying in New England is if you don't like the weather, just wait a day. Climate change was round way before the current special effect science.

 

[billvon]

So, then these AGW fools would also well be defined/labeled as "deniers".

No, that would be the opposite of denier.

Gets confusing.

Yes, when you try to redefine terms to suit your political agenda, you can confuse yourself. Good way to deal with that - don't redefine terms to suit your political agenda.

Much like the term racists. Many fools claim that only white people can be racists. Which is not accurate.

Agreed. Now think about how confusing it would be if you said "people who believe in racial equality consider race, so they are racists." You would, once again, confuse yourself.

Except for a very few individuals, the term is meaningless, and should be employed very sparingly.

Agreed that it applies only to extremists - but it is quite accurate when so used.

The term is used far to often to serve any valid purpose, and I would recommend eschewing it, as, by using it, you identify yourselves with those with whom no sane, honorable or intelligent person would want to be identified.

Again, if you have a more politically correct term that you would prefer to be used, I would be happy to use it. If you cannot be bothered, you would be hypocritical to demand that others do what you are unwilling to do.

 

[sculptor]

from my "Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post:
How about those who have drunk the agw cool-aide, and deny that a significant portion of the last century's warming was as likely caused by being in a grand solar maximum, and continued warming out of the last grand minimum(maunder---not dalton nor gleisberg).
These fools are also denying climate science, and the general bias of the astrophysicists.
So, then these AGW fools would also well be defined/labeled as "deniers".

No, that would be the opposite of denier.

.

How so?
If they wish to recognize only the anthropogenic component, are they not indeed climate science deniers?
And, when one of them uses the term "denier" is that not the epitome of hypocrisy?

 

[sculptor]

The trick is, that with all of this "name calling" the real understanding of the climate balance suffers from the action.

ergo: The use of the term is indeed "obfuscatory".

 

[billvon]

As an analogy if I said I created a 6 passenger car that gets 120 mpg and has a range of 1000 miles this would be something that has no precedent. If it had the free ride being given to the global warming prototype, it would be blindly accepted by half the population as real. The skeptics would be called the deniers. The deniers would be pointing out how there is no precedent to extrapolate from and road tests are not adding up based on the marketing claims. While the bandwagon will be pointing to the state of the art manufacturing facility implies it has to be real. They do have good tools but that is besides the point. The claim has no basis in anything that currently exists in the data base.

Let's fast forward 40 years. Your cars are now driving on the road, and have been seen by millions of people. Sometimes they get 80mpg, sometimes they get 120mpg, sometimes they get 130mpg. Scientists have examined the car and 97% of them agree it meets your basic claims. The deniers are still claiming "the car doesn't exist! and even if it does exist, it doesn't get 120mpg!"

The deniers would be laughed at - just as climate change deniers are today.

 

[billvon]

No, that would be the opposite of denier.

How so?

AGW deniers have the characteristic that they deny AGW. Pretty simple really. Sort of how the term "runner" means "someone who runs" and not "someone who eats chocolate" or "someone who thinks running is bad for you." If you don't get it, then I can't help you.

 

[billvon]

The trick is, that with all of this "name calling" the real understanding of the climate balance suffers from the action.

Not really. The scientists working on this don't really care what deniers on Internet forums say. They just keep working on the science.

 

[sculptor]

from billvon:

And on the left we have prominent liberals who want anyone who denies climate change arrested. We have the heads of environmental groups sending emails telling deniers "It is my intention to destroy your career."

Both sides have their extremists - on most topics.

 

[Trippy]

If they wish to recognize only the anthropogenic component, are they not indeed climate science deniers?

Because recognising the anthropogenic component does not require denying the natural component - remember, climate models start with solar input.

 

[sculptor]

Because recognising the anthropogenic component does not require denying the natural component - remember, climate models start with solar input.

and, the causal percentages remain in doubt

for all but die-hard climate science deniers

 

[billvon]

and, the causal percentages remain in doubt

Not really. We have ranges and error bars. So the range of percentages is quite well known.