# climate change deniers **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [October 12, 2012, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490 "2012-10-12T06:10:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490/21 "2012-10-13T20:39:10Z")
If responding to a person within a debate, it’s merely recognizing the anti-science/ignorant perspective. It’s not normally trotted out in GQ every time someone asks about climate change. You don’t call someone a creationist at the drop of a hat either–recognition of such profound ignorance comes from the creationis/denier. Similarly, if a person links to ID or creationist sites to ‘disprove’ evolution, calling the reference creationist (or birther, or truther, they’re all intellectually on par with climate change denial) is, as mentioned above, a shorthand to say that this site or reference should not be taken seriously with regards to any statements that have to do with science. Yes, there are a host of sites that actively criticise and improve climate science, and yes it’s certainly possible to question various conclusions and contributions to climate science. It’s how science works, really. However, pretending that that is in the same category of overall/general denial is as willfully ignorant as being a denier in the first place. Other deniers may cheer you on–just as creationists will rah-rah someone who drags out oft-disproved ‘challenges’ to evolutionary theory. I am on somewhat of the same page as **Aji**. Except being a denier enters the discussion with either the unwillingness or inability to enter debate. Calling someone a denier merely recognizes that after the fact. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490/22 "2012-10-14T02:08:08Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If a person denies that climate change is occurring, then they are, as a simple matter of fact, climate-change deniers. Now, obviously, this is repugnant to anyone who’s educated themselves in the least on the topic, but I fail to see how it could possibly be insulting to the deniers themselves: Logically, they should find it no more repugnant than being called unicorn-deniers or leprechaun-deniers. Let’s see. I guess I am a Shroud of Turin denier: the shroud exists, but I don’t think it’s the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazarath. I’m also a Uri Geller denier: I don’t believe he has supernatural powers. I deny that M1 or M2 are currently useful as the sole guide to monetary policy: I am an M1 denier. I don’t like to share my zip code online in public forums: I am a zip code denier. I am an agnostic, but not a hard atheist, so I am not a theistic denier. I do not work for an insurance company so I am not a claims adjustment denier. I do not launch denial of service attacks. I am not quite a supply-side denier, as I believe that technology and innovation drive potential growth. I am a denier of monocausal theories of history, such as the one where taxes caused the rise of Hilter. I have been accused of being disingenuous at times: I can’t deny that, but I prefer to call it irony. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490/23 "2012-10-14T03:20:15Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > If responding to a person within a debate, it’s merely recognizing the anti-science/ignorant perspective. It’s not normally trotted out in GQ every time someone asks about climate change. You don’t call someone a creationist at the drop of a hat either–recognition of such profound ignorance comes from the creationis/denier. Similarly, if a person links to ID or creationist sites to ‘disprove’ evolution, calling the reference creationist (or birther, or truther, they’re all intellectually on par with climate change denial) is, as mentioned above, a shorthand to say that this site or reference should not be taken seriously with regards to any statements that have to do with science. > > Yes, there are a host of sites that actively criticise and improve climate science, and yes it’s certainly possible to question various conclusions and contributions to climate science. It’s how science works, really. However, pretending that that is in the same category of overall/general denial is as willfully ignorant as being a denier in the first place. Other deniers may cheer you on–just as creationists will rah-rah someone who drags out oft-disproved ‘challenges’ to evolutionary theory. > > I am on somewhat of the same page as **Aji**. Except being a denier enters the discussion with either the unwillingness or inability to enter debate. Calling someone a denier merely recognizes that after the fact. QTF and I also want to add this: There is also a denial that there are methods and/or resources that are available to identify bad sources from the good ones. And also a denial that scientists can organize resources that explained already why several points that are used and reused forever from the ones that are against the science were already dealt with and explained many times before. A site like [SkepticalScience.com](http://SkepticalScience.com) is not unique at all, biologists and geneticists dealing with creationists have [TalkOrigins.org](http://TalkOrigins.org) and Genetic Engineers have [Biofortified.org](http://Biofortified.org) What it should be clear is that only by ignoring those resources one can be blissfully unaware of the whoppers pseudo-scientists come with **or that they almost never correct painfully inaccurate or outdated information from their sites** , that should be indeed one of the best ways to identify a woo woo site or source, a skeptic that claims to be one should be aware of what has been discussed before and not just jump to the conclusion that someone pointing at the science is deluded, likewise one does not automatically gets branded a denier or a creationist, that happens when someone depends on unreliable sources that come up like a bad old worn out penny. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490/24 "2012-10-14T05:13:13Z")
BTW, the term denier as it is used on an anonymous MB doesn’t bother me at all. The words of some random guy on the web cannot possibly hurt me. Simply if you used it, have a thick skin to take it in. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490/25 "2012-10-14T14:06:15Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Connecting disliking a point of view and disliking a race is beyond ridiculous and I’ll leave it at that. Elevating my comments to “disliking a race” is a good tactic but wrong. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490/26 "2012-10-14T14:10:15Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Elevating my comments to “disliking a race” is a good tactic but wrong. It’s not a tactic, because I am not debating. I simply think what you said is silly. If you want to frame your opinion into a GD thread then maybe I will debate it, but I think that’s enough hijacking this thread. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490/27 "2012-10-14T14:46:35Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > It’s not a tactic, because I am not debating. I simply think what you said is silly. If you want to frame your opinion into a GD thread then maybe I will debate it, but I think that’s enough hijacking this thread. That I don’t dislike all black people is not subject to debate. As for silly, I offer “climate change deniers”. There, now we are back on point. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490/28 "2012-10-14T14:56:39Z")
I never said you dislike all blacks. For all I know it’s Mexicans you dislike. Just kidding. Clearly, you are a climate change skeptic and take offense at being called a “denier” but [post 13](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15586530&postcount=13) sums up my view. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490/29 "2012-10-14T16:02:00Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I never said you dislike all blacks. For all I know it’s Mexicans you dislike. Just kidding. Clearly, you are a climate change skeptic and take offense at being called a “denier” but [post 13](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15586530&postcount=13) sums up my view. Well thank-you for that and I too wold like to make a final point… that generalizing reaches a whole new level when done about a Democrat voting bloc. Make that any large Democrat voting bloc. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490/30 "2012-10-14T17:03:29Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > Well thank-you for that and I too wold like to make a final point… that generalizing reaches a whole new level when done about a Democrat voting bloc. Make that any large Democrat voting bloc. Speaking of the issue at hand, the fact is that there are republican climate scientists that report the same as virtually any other climate scientist tells it: humans should not go treating the atmosphere as a sewer and expect that there will be no consequences. The ones that are politicizing the science can be identified when they ignore even the scientists that are on the same Republican voting block. > **[The Monckton Files: Cracked](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/the-monckton-files-cracked/)** > > His Lordship, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (glory be to his Beneficence) has long since careened over the Cliffs of Insanity, but we keep listening to no avail for the “splat.R… > [@](#): > > P.S. No, I didn’t vote for Obama. > **[Who’s Afraid of Kerry Emanuel? Why Republicans Are Attacking a Republican...](https://www.desmog.com/2012/01/19/who-s-afraid-kerry-emanuel-why-republicans-are-attacking-republican-climate-scientist/)** > > Last week, MIT climate scientist and hurricane specialist Kerry Emanuel received email threats for his view on climate change. These were quickly and appropriately condemned by the progressive and environmental blogosphere—as they are condemned by... > [@](#): > > The answer may seem deceptively simple on the surface: Unlike most climate researchers, Kerry Emanuel describes himself as a long time Republican. And he’s been speaking out lately. The precise catalyst leading to the emails was a video posted by Climate Desk, capturing Emanuel at an event in New Hampshire organized by maverick Republicans who actually accept global warming and don’t like the way their party is headed. They want to turn it around (hey, good luck with that). [Richard Alley, Calvin DeWitt, Katharine Hayhoe](http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120221/republicans-santorum-romney-gingrich-climate-scientists-scientific-consensus-skeptics-kerry-emanuel), even one of the big ones James Hansen was reported to be a Republican, but after all the demonizing he got after decades of work, I would not be surprised that he is no longer one. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2012, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490/31 "2012-10-14T19:46:48Z")
FTR: Climate change skeptic : climate change denier :: Proponent of intelligent design : creationist [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-deniers/637490.md?page=1)