# Mods, you are playing their ignorant game if "climate change deniers" is offlimits. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 9, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931 "2012-08-09T03:49:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/61 "2012-08-11T16:35:36Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Cool! So since “denier” is off the table, stuff like “tighty righty” and “Repugnican” is also verboten as well? Because, I’d firmly support that. If so, it’ll drop a number o poster’s output (like Elucidator) by a large amount given the signal to noise ratio, that can only be seen as an improvement… > . Don’t have to read 'em, hoss. Won’t bother me none. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/62 "2012-08-11T17:30:42Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Yes, it’s amazing–that two people on the Dope can be so ignorant of what a rule is. When someone in authority says “You are not allowed to do X” that is by definition a rule. Rules lawyering gets you nowhere and is a completely unmanageable way of dealing with the complexities and ambiguities of human interaction. Really the best way to handle all of this is to have a basic set of “guidelines” (e.g. don’t be a jerk) and give the mods the freedom to guide according to the general intent or spirit of the overall goal. If there is a feeling that it has skewed too far in one direction, then hopefully feedback in ATMB will steer things back in the other direction. If you’ve ever been involved in a complex contract dispute, you will understand that for every new rule and attempt to make things black and white, you’ve just created multiple additional ways to remain inside the letter of the contract while breaking the spirit of the contract. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/63 "2012-08-11T18:19:59Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And **tomndebb** is the king of making up new rules to suit his fancy. The weird thing is, no other moderator works that way. In the past, when people have complained about his moderation style, the response has been that he’s the only mod willing to take on Great Debates, but this is obviously untrue now. > > The real answer is that mods only leave when they quit, and, unlike others who have either retired or mostly stopped moderating, **tomndebb** has shown no signs of getting fed up with the opposition to his broken moderation style. And I don’t believe I’ve ever seen him reverse a decision, so these threads are entirely pointless. > [@BigT](#): > > Yes, it’s amazing–that two people on the Dope can be so ignorant of what a rule is. When someone in authority says “You are not allowed to do X” that is by definition a rule. What thread are you reading? Since the first days, Mods have had the discretionary authority to control, shape, and direct the course of threads. They do so exceedingly rarely, and their intervention is one of the foundational aspects of the Board’s character. If you want to get hung up on semantics and say that every single mod note and instruction, whether limited to a particular thread or not is a new “law,” have at it. You’re free to have your own private dictionary, particularly if it gives vent to whatever anger you have bubbling below the surface. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/64 "2012-08-12T02:21:10Z")
“There’s glory for you!” 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Cicero](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cicero/32/3594_2.png) [@Cicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cicero)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/65 "2012-08-12T15:57:56Z")
I support the Mods in this thread. Mainly as I don’t have a clue what it’s about after reading seemingly a million posts. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2012, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/66 "2012-08-12T17:28:20Z")
Since I believe that abortion is murder, I’ll use the term “supporters of legal baby slaughter” to describe the pro-choice camp every time I mention it. Seriously, though, the mods are right. Pejorative terms don’t belong in civilized debate. It hijacks the thread and keeps people from articulating their points as the thread devolves into a debate over labels. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/67 "2012-08-12T18:21:21Z")
Lets not generalize, I already mentioned that I will follow the ruling in that thread, but it was made only for that thread, the efforts of making this term at hand into an insult are way off base and are also a recognized tactic of the ignorant side to censor and control the discussion, there is a sea of difference between an skeptic and a denier. **Believers and deniers do exist of many different issues** , but where I’m coming from is that I do look at what scientists that are proponents of AGW are finding, vs the scientists that are skeptics. https://www.youtube.com/embed/52KLGqDSAjo?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8 The problem here is that while there are good sources of what skeptical scientists are saying, it is actually not very helpful to what many opponents think they are saying, the fact is that even skeptical scientists already accept most of what is going on in the atmosphere. So then we get posters that rely not on any expert sites but on misleading and seeders of FUD, and most of those sources also tell them to use this rhetoric of reporting that the word denier is an insult. If that is granted in general, rather than in the specific case we had, then we have a problem, most of the sources that deal with the issue know when they are dealing with an skeptic position, vs the ones that are denying the basic science. Going forward it will require an active censorship of what proponents are encountering in the field, sometimes it comes with threats of violence, like in this example: > **[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... > [@](#): > > Even in the Reagan years, while there were certainly abuses against science there was also much more Republican rationalism and moderation—epitomized by Reagan’s joining the Montreal Protocol to curtail harmful stratospheric ozone depletion from CFCs. > > This history, this legacy, led many people of reason—like Emanuel—to feel very comfortable within the Republican ranks. And once you forge a relationship with a political party and develop a loyalty, it is very hard to change it. > > But the injuries to Republican reasoners have steadily mounted—from Newt Gingrich presiding over the destruction of congressional science advice in the mid 1990s, to the George W. Bush administration’s undermining of science at every turn, to the Tea Party and the near monolithic rejection of climate science by today’s GOP presidential candidates—and rationalists like Emanuel have a harder and harder time hanging on. Indeed, at this point they’re hanging by a thread. > > What’s more, deep down, a lot of the right wing science deniers kind of know that they are pushing these people away. > > Don’t get me wrong: They don’t actually believe that they’re factually incorrect. They don’t view themselves as “deniers.” But they definitely know that there is a huge amount of knowledge, intellect, and expertise that they’re flying in the face of. And they feel that disdain, as well as that bafflement, coming from the acknowledged centers of science and learning. > > So when one of their “own,” Kerry Emanuel, comes along and states—from an expert scientific perspective—that they’re abandoning reason…the cognitive dissonance is just too great. And because they can’t admit the truth about themselves, they can only lash at the messenger. If what we had in that thread were good skeptics they would not resort at repeating points that are debunked, day in and day out, what IMHO needs to be taken into account going forward is to be aware that even on their attempts at looking at equating a term into a nefarious one is also a boiler plate maneuver\*\* of the ones that actively avoiding even what skeptical scientists are saying\*\*. > **[Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data](https://languages.oup.com/)** > > Explore Oxford Languages, the home of world-renowned language data. > [@](#): > > denier > _noun_ > a person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence: > > _a prominent denier of global warming_ ---
**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:** [August 12, 2012, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/68 "2012-08-12T20:08:33Z")
I am an ESP denier. Not a skeptic. A denier. I am a bigfoot denier. Not a skeptic. A denier. I am a Loch Ness Monster skeptic. I just can bring myself to deny Nessie’s existence, despite overwhelming evidence. ☹ I am an abomidable snowman skeptic: I provisionally conclude that it was based on an early sighting of a buddhist monk/hermit, consistent with [this book](http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Monsters-Daniel-Cohen/dp/038071485X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344801921&sr=1-2&keywords=encyclopedia+monsters). I’m willing to deny that Yeti is something other than homo sapien though. ## If somebody refers to me as an ESP denier, I think that says more about them, than about me: it implies they have a rudimentary grip on the English language. I certainly have no problem with the term. **jtgain** : Not bad. Arguably both terms are loaded in some way. But I think there are some key differences. Do AGW Deniers reject the contention that they deny global warming? If they say, “No actually I think there’s an effect, but that it’s over-estimated,” that’s something else. Nordhaus (~1992) fell in that category, though he has since switched polarities. But if they deny global warming exists, how can it bad to acknowledge that? Taking your example, I deny that abortion is murder. So calling me a murder-apologist is misleading. But is **Ají de Gallina** saying that he accepts mainstream AGW science? Judging from this thread, it appears not. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/69 "2012-08-12T20:27:39Z")
Thank you **Measure for Measure** , as I pointed in the GD thread, I accept that I have issues with grammar as English is my second language, so you are explaining this better than I could do, besides I have a slight fever and I have found out that it causes even more mistakes to crop up. Once again I accept the ruling in that thread, as it is likely that the tempers were flaring, and it is clear also that the term is not an insult in itself in other threads as moderators are making clear in other instances, I only can point out that it has to be taken into account that there is also in the background an effort by many non scientific sources to press the buttons of many groups and organizations regarding the use of this word. ---
**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:** [August 12, 2012, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/70 "2012-08-12T20:49:10Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Thank you **Measure for Measure** , as I pointed in the GD thread, I accept that I have issues with grammar as English is my second language, so you are explaining this better than I could do, besides I have a slight fever and I have found out that it causes even more mistakes to crop up. [hijack] Holy moley: English is your second language? Jeez, it’s fine. For that matter so is Ají de Gallina’s, though I disagree with that poster’s linguistic take on the term “Denier”. FWIW, I retract the snark or whatever it was about English mastery. I speak only one language and struggled with foreign language requirements in my American high school. Furthermore, with regards to: “Once again I accept the ruling in that thread, as it is likely that the tempers were flaring…” IMHO, that’s an appropriate ATMB attitude. I think the mods do a fine job, but sometimes it’s worth discussing the underlying issues in greater depth. In such cases, it makes sense to repeat one’s qualified agreement with the ruling a couple of times for clarity’s sake. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/71 "2012-08-13T00:17:49Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Do AGW Deniers reject the contention that they deny global warming? No, but “denier” is a loaded term that causes the debate to then become about labels. It has this negative connotation from the conspiracy theories. I think that each group should be allowed to use the labels they choose for themselves, so long as its no so ridiculous as to defy all logic. For example, in the abortion debate, pro-life and pro-choice do the job. Each side gives to put forth their best label, it’s not terribly misleading, and it allows the debate to go forward. When others start nitpicking (e.g. You aren’t pro-life, you are for the death penalty! You aren’t pro-choice, you are in favor of gun control!) then the real debate gets pushed aside. In that vein, “denier” serves no purpose but to put people on the defensive, and it is useless as a descriptor because it could apply to anything. If you don’t support widgets, you are a “widget denier.” ---
**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:** [August 13, 2012, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/72 "2012-08-13T00:51:22Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > No, but “denier” is a loaded term that causes the debate to then become about labels. It has this negative connotation from the conspiracy theories. I think that each group should be allowed to use the labels they choose for themselves, so long as its no so ridiculous as to defy all logic. For example, in the abortion debate, pro-life and pro-choice do the job. Each side gives to put forth their best label, it’s not terribly misleading, and it allows the debate to go forward. > > When others start nitpicking (e.g. You aren’t pro-life, you are for the death penalty! You aren’t pro-choice, you are in favor of gun control!) then the real debate gets pushed aside. > > In that vein, “denier” serves no purpose but to put people on the defensive, and it is useless as a descriptor because it could apply to anything. If you don’t support widgets, you are a “widget denier.” Sorry to say but the group we are talking here is indeed so ridiculous as to defy all logic, as mentioned before, there are indeed experts that are skeptics on the issue (shrinking in number, but still there) and then we have the “sons” of the tobacco industry FUD that mutated into climate change FUD propagandists. > **[Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway | Book review](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/aug/08/merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-conway)** > > This exposé of the coterie of rightwing scientists hell-bent on destroying the cause of environmentalism is outstanding, says Robin McKie This is a case were there are 4 groups, there are believers like Al Gore, Deniers like Rush Limbaugh (not scientists) and Proponents like Michael Man and Skeptics like Paul Michaels. (scientists). ---
**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:** [August 13, 2012, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/73 "2012-08-13T01:12:30Z")
Well I’m a widget denier: I deny they exist. What’s the big deal? Oh. I get it. Holocaust denier. That’s what’s getting them upset. Seriously, it took me this long to work that out. I can only sigh and roll my eyes. Look. I’m not about to let them call themselves by terms that are inaccurate – and “Skeptic” is more loaded than “Denier”, which has but one negative example, though it is a doosy. Still if we’re playing that game, I’ll expect all to call me an Accuratist – but please don’t use scare quotes. The point being is _no, you don’t get to label yourself with loaded terms either_. How about “Tea Party Climatologists”? Would that work? Seriously, “Denier” is pretty weak stuff and global warming oppositionalists haven’t proposed a better label for themselves. Many global warming opponents don’t mind being called deniers not because they are taking back a derogatory term, but because it was rather neutral to begin with. Incidentally, try searching for “Denier” on google news. I’m getting climate change denier references from the Christian Science Monitor: [Prominent climate change denier now admits he was wrong - CSMonitor.com](http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video) the Minneaopolis Star Tribune: [http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/164326886.html?refer=y](http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/164326886.html?refer=y) Sci-Tech Today: [NewsFactor – NewsFactor | CIO Today | Top Tech News | Sci-Tech Today](http://www.sci-tech-today.com/news/Climate-Change-Skeptic-s-Turnaround/story.xhtml?story_id=133007GJ7UQE) US News and World Report: [http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/07/30/have-the-koch-brothers-changed-their-mind-about-climate-change](http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/07/30/have-the-koch-brothers-changed-their-mind-about-climate-change) the NJ Star Ledger: [Time's up for climate change deniers - nj.com](http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2012/08/times_up_for_climate_change_de.html) McClatchy: [http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120805/OPINION04/308050037/Neela-Banerjee-climate-change-denier-no-more](http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120805/OPINION04/308050037/Neela-Banerjee-climate-change-denier-no-more) And here’s a report from 2010 about a debate among journalists about the proper label for climate change nutbars (my term, not theirs 🙂 ). Possibilities include denier, skeptic, denialist (frowned upon), oppositionalist, contrarians, yellow bellied sap suckers (a joke obviously), rejectors, rejectionalists… [cejournal.net](http://www.cejournal.net/?p=4618) The problem I have with the discussion is the implication that the _existence_ as opposed to the _extent_ of AGW is an active topic among serious mainstream scientists. The schematic chart on this link expresses my concerns: [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/07/478984/hug-the-monster-why-so-many-climate-scientists-have-stopped-downplaying-the-climate-threat/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/07/478984/hug-the-monster-why-so-many-climate-scientists-have-stopped-downplaying-the-climate-threat/) ---
**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:** [August 13, 2012, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/74 "2012-08-13T02:17:56Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > (snipped) > **jtgain** : Not bad. Arguably both terms are loaded in some way. But I think there are some key differences. Do AGW Deniers reject the contention that they deny global warming? If they say, “No actually I think there’s an effect, but that it’s over-estimated,” that’s something else. Nordhaus (~1992) fell in that category, though he has since switched polarities. But if they deny global warming exists, how can it bad to acknowledge that? Taking your example, I deny that abortion is murder. So calling me a murder-apologist is misleading. But is **Ají de Gallina** saying that he accepts mainstream AGW science? Judging from this thread, it appears not. But it’s the person saying “murder apologist” who decides if the term is right, not the one receiving it. a racists cannot say “I’m not a racist because giving blacks fewer rights is what they deserve for being blacks, I’m not taking anything away; they’re too stupid too vote”, and then the debate becomes a definiton debate and not about the topic. As to my accepting AGW science it depends on what you mean but I’ll summarise what I do accept Temperatures have increased on average about 1ºC in the lats 100 years. CO2 concentration has increased. This increase in concentrations has been part of the reasons why temperatures have gone up. I do not accept the high CO2-sensitivites proposed (for mathematical reasons). i do not accept that CO2 is the main driver of temperatures (because such a multi-variable chaotic system cannot be driven by such a small factor). I believe that the role of the sun has been understated. ---
**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:** [August 13, 2012, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/75 "2012-08-13T02:27:59Z")
> **[CO2 is the main driver of climate change](https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate-intermediate.htm)** > > \While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing.\ > [@](#): > > While there are many drivers of climate, CO2 is the most dominant radiative forcing and is increasing faster than any other forcing. > **[How sensitive is our climate?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm)** > > \Climate sensitivity can be calculated empirically by comparing past temperature change to natural forcings at the time. Various periods of Earth's past have been examined in this manner and find broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around... > [@](#): > > Some global warming ‘skeptics’ argue that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models. > **[Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm)** > > \In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.\ > [@](#): > > In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. Now the basic problem here is that resources like Skeptical Science have been pointed out many, many, times in the past; constantly ignoring what scientists are dealing with is not skepticism. Incidentally the thread where this issue took place deals with an skeptic scientist that believed that there was suspicion that the data and evidence was changed to show high temperature rises or unfounded connections to human emitted CO2 the conclusions they actually reached was that the early researchers did the proper thing, and the science is valid, humans are driving the current increase in warming and that conclusion is the one being rejected here. ---
**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:** [August 13, 2012, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/76 "2012-08-13T04:26:05Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [CO2 is the main driver of climate change](http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate-intermediate.htm) > [How sensitive is our climate?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm) > [Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm) > Now the basic problem here is that resources like Skeptical Science have been pointed out many, many, times in the past; constantly ignoring what scientists are dealing with is not skepticism. > > Incidentally the thread where this issue took place deals with an skeptic scientist that believed that there was suspicion that the data and evidence was changed to show high temperature rises or unfounded connections to human emitted CO2 the conclusions they actually reached was that the early researchers did the proper thing, and the science is valid, humans are driving the current increase in warming and that conclusion is the one being rejected here. This is not a GW thread. I was being polite to a poster, clarifying, to him, my views ---
**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:** [August 13, 2012, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/77 "2012-08-13T04:46:25Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > This is not a GW thread. I was being polite to a poster, clarifying, to him, my views I’m clarifying too, there is a huge problem if the ones attempting to change the definition are not even aware of what it is all about, even the dictionary reports how this definition is appropriate when several scientific studies and research are willfully ignored. ---
**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:** [August 13, 2012, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/78 "2012-08-13T05:23:19Z")
And to further clarify, where I’m coming from is like living in Alice in Wonderland. With the Queen of Hearths demanding more than just a change of the definition of a word. It is a world were people that reject the evidence is demanding the head of the scientists. What I’m saying here is that the current political environment should not be ignored. I’ll leave the words of our former(?) doper **The Bad Astronomer** , Phil Plait to describe the situation and yes, once again that word is appropriate. [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/23/deniers-disgust-and-defamation/#more-51977](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/23/deniers-disgust-and-defamation/#more-51977) > [@](#): > > Deniers, disgust, and defamation > > Whenever I post about the reality of climate change, I get the usual chorus of denialist outrage. This includes the odd ad hominem or two, like the sneering “What does an astronomer know about the climate?”, because apparently not having an advanced degree in science makes someone a better judge of the data. > > But the slings and arrows I get here are nothing, nothing, compared to what professional climate scientist Michael Mann gets. He is, after all, the researcher who first published the hockey stick diagram which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth has warmed up. To the deniers, he is Enemy Number 1. They have attacked his diagram and his research many times, always coming up short. The data and methods are solid, and it’s clear the Earth really is warming up. > > So what’s a denier to do when all the evidence is against them? They attack Dr. Mann himself, of course. > > These onslaughts have been documented endlessly, and they include Congressional shenanigans, witch hunts by the Virginia Attorney General, and even death threats. > [@](#): > > I think Mann is correct to have his lawyer contact _The National Review_, since the defamatory nature of the article and the attack on his scientific credibility is clear. But I think the slimy analogy is what makes me angrier. Sadder, too. As we’ve seen, this is what discourse has become in politicized science. Ironically, too, deniers accuse scientists (including me) of politicizing science, but neither I nor any scientist has politicized it. **The attacks on global warming science originated clearly and obviously from the far right, and it was those attacks that politicized the science**. What scientists have done since then is a reaction to those partisan and political attacks. As usual, deniers accuse scientists of precisely the sort of tactics they themselves are using. It’s 1984 come alive. > > For more on this I recommend reading the excellent Climate Crocks site, as well as the American Geophysical Union blog. [NOTE: Mann has also written about these extensive attacks on him, his research, and his character in his book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.] And if you are a scientist, pay attention. It doesn’t matter if you are a climatologist, a biologist, or an astronomer. **In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs.** > > It’s disgusting, and it’s dangerous, but it’s also the new political reality. We must be ever vigilant against such attacks, because that is the true price of defending reality. ---
**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:** [August 13, 2012, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/79 "2012-08-13T07:12:02Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > … and then the debate becomes a definiton debate and not about the topic. Well, there’s _something_ to this argument, but that doesn’t mean you get to choose your own label: as I claimed earlier “Skeptic” is more loaded than “Denier”. > [@](#): > > …I believe that the role of the sun has been understated. You could for example say, “Call me a solarist and call non-solarists plain old deniers”. Except that _if_ you are dealing with cranks, they will have other reasons why they don’t believe in AGW that only come out once you’ve played Whack-a-mole with their latest argument. Finally, we need to get our insults straight. If you want to broadside AGW opponents, call them “Crackpots” or “Hacks”. If you want to slam mainstream scientists the term might be “Global Warming Hysterics” or maybe “Eggheads” or “Pencil-necks”. “Catastrophicists” might be a reasonable term for a [minority of climate scientists](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/12/global-warming-temp-rise-population). [Er Aja: I see from your profile that you are from Peru. Does the translation of “Denier” have negative connotations in Spanish? My take is that “Denier” is more neutral than derogatory in English – but I hasten to acknowledge that **jtgain** seems to disagree with me.] ---
**Author:** ![Hbns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hbns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hbns)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/80 "2012-08-13T17:35:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > This is a case were there are 4 groups, there are believers like Al Gore, Deniers like Rush Limbaugh (not scientists) and Proponents like Michael Man and Skeptics like Paul Michaels. (scientists). Substitute _Promoter_ for Al Gore and I think you’ve got a winner. If I follow the logic, is it then ok to say that **Gigobuster** is a naturogenic global warming denier? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931.md?page=5)