# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/81 "2012-08-13T18:00:09Z")
**GIGO** , you seem to want to elevate AGW to the level of evolution, but it’s not that conclusive, it’s still a work in progress. You can’t just assume your side is right and anyone that disagrees is a “denier”. If your debating position relies on the fact that everyone first agrees you are correct and anyone that disagrees is just a “denier”, what’s the point of even debating the various points? ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/82 "2012-08-13T18:27:56Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > **GIGO** , you seem to want to elevate AGW to the level of evolution, but it’s not that conclusive, it’s still a work in progress. Well, this has more than 100 years of history, and ever since 50 years ago the basics of the issue became clear, the assumption that we could treat the atmosphere like a sewer with no repercussion whatsoever was the incorrect one. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) > [@RaftPeople](#): > > **GIGO** > You can’t just assume your side is right and anyone that disagrees is a “denier”. Nope, I assume always that a new person I’m dealing with is an skeptic. When in the course of the long discussions the opponent only copies and pastes the already worn out myths: > **[Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... Then I go for the alternative. Like Feynman said, down to the dismissed pile they go when they use already debunked points. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > **GIGO** > If your debating position relies on the fact that everyone first agrees you are correct and anyone that disagrees is just a “denier”, what’s the point of even debating the various points? Life is short, in this particular case ignoring that this is the 21st century is silly, the best way to progress when a scientific case is discussed is to show the evidence when a myth appears, then if there is no acknowledgement whatsoever of the scientific information that is available, then it is clear where the opponent is coming from. ---
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/83 "2012-08-13T18:40:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Life is short, in this particular case ignoring that this is the 21st century is silly, the best way to progress when a scientific case is discussed is to show the evidence when a myth appears, then if there is no acknowledgement whatsoever of the scientific information that is available, then it is clear where the opponent is coming from. Are you admitting to trolling GD here? Otherwise, I think setting yourself up as the arbiter of what scientific information must be acknowledged before a rebuttal can be offered is sort of poisoning the well don’t you think? ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/84 "2012-08-13T18:49:47Z")
If what the politicization of this issue does show is that there a sea of items that should be discussed now and they are not discussed precisely because the intent is to delay any action in this issue. Issues like how will be the most effective way to deal with the issue, how to get free enterprise to get more active as many industries are already getting into the act, **how to get the industries responsible for this deal with the issue properly instead of funding contrarian think tanks**. > **[GM pulls support for Heartland Institute](https://www.latimes.com/science/la-xpm-2012-mar-30-la-me-gs-gm-pulls-support-for-heartland-institute-20120330-story.html)** > > GM pulls support for Heartland Institute Etc, Etc, the insistence on going back to tell others that we should still “deal with the controversy” \* when there is virtually none among the experts that we depend on is in reality just like the old “teach the controversy” point by the creationists. They are demanding an equality that is not there anymore, and when Republicans are doubling down on the already explained myths, there is no progress whatsoever, it is a clear case of the blind leading the blind. \* (It is true that what is happening here is that this subject is complex, **but there are already many pieces that do not generate any controversy among scientists** ) [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/a69_owv4jEE/maxresdefault.jpg ""We don't know enough..." How to talk to an OSTRICH") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69_owv4jEE) (video by Richard Alley, scientist that is a Republican, but I wonder for how long considering the flack they get now…) ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/85 "2012-08-13T18:52:35Z")
> [@Hbns](#): > > Are you admitting to trolling GD here? > > Otherwise, I think setting yourself up as the arbiter of what scientific information must be acknowledged before a rebuttal can be offered is sort of poisoning the well don’t you think? :rolleyes: That is projection, what I suggest here is precisely a way to identify the ones that only are parroting myths, **it is an effort to clean the well**. Otherwise, scientists like Feynman where trolls. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/uJ76aomTnTA/hqdefault.jpg "PseudoScience") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ76aomTnTA) And while not all of the ones that bring myths are trolls, one can uncover very quickly the ones who are depending on the answer they give, generally it is most of the ones who never think to complain to the ones that gave them that misleading information they bring to the plate. ---
**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, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/86 "2012-08-13T20:01:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And while not all of the ones that bring myths are trolls, one can uncover very quickly the ones who are depending on the answer they give, generally it is most of the ones who never think to complain to the ones that gave them that misleading information they bring to the plate. Okey dokey. ---
**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, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/87 "2012-08-13T23:10:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. I’m aware, thanks very much, of the relevant scientific information and understand it very well. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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) I’ll re-repeat. I myself do not object the word “denier” (which I’ll always answer with “deluded”); I simply think it doesn’t foster polite debate. Just in case: I didn’t report you or anyone on the thread. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 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”. 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.] I’ll re-re-repeat: I don’t object the definition of the term or even if it is applicalbe to me(it isn’t, but it doesn’t matter); a 100% linguistically correct term and still not be good for a nice debate. There is no problem with the term’s meaning in Spanish. In English the term isn’t neutral. Thequintescential denier is the Holocaust denier, it’s a heaviliy loaded term. ---
**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, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/88 "2012-08-13T23:45:25Z")
And of course the word sympathizer, never liked it too, Burn it at the stake I say! 🙂 ---
**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 14, 2012, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/89 "2012-08-14T00:11:39Z")
As **Measure by Measure** noticed, indeed, the real reason for this fake issue is the attempt at turning the term into an offensive one by recalling that it is used also for the ones that deny the holocaust, the reality is that just because the tactics to deny evidence are very similar, it does not follow that they are killing Jews and minorities. The focus is, as it is with any other denialist efforts like denying that the HIV virus causes AIDS, is in denying evidence that is inconvenient. Even dictionaries tell one that, but I guess I will have to say some are willing to deny them too! As physicist Mark Hofnagle would say, do not mistake denialism with debate. > **[Is the holocaust denial/climate change denial comparison apt? | ScienceBlogs](https://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/05/18/is-the-holocaust-denialclimate)** > > Many of the climate change denialist sites have been up in arms by comparisons of climate change denial to holocaust denial. > [@](#): > > In general people who engage in denialism are ideologues who use similar rhetorical tactics, and that’s where my comparison ends. **The commonality is denial, and all those who engage in denial aren’t automatically morally comparable to Holocaust deniers.** After all, the ideology fueling denial comes from all sides of the political spectrum, and ranges from hateful (anti-semitism) to political (libertarianism vs global warming) to even well intentioned compassion (animal rights extremism vs biological science). Usually, the desire to make the comparison to Holocaust denial comes from the denialists themselves, as they wish to create a straw man argument to distract from their dishonest rhetoric. When we describe denialism we are describing the use of conspiracy theories, cherry-picking, fake experts, moving goalposts and logical fallacies to argue against legitimate science. It is not a description of people who might disagree with a scientific theory or even a scientific consensus, as scientists routinely disagree over interpretation of data and it is possible for consensus to be overturned. However, legitimate debate occurs in the scientific literature, and not by alleging fantastical conspiracy theories and denial of data. > > **Worse, using the Holocaust itself to score rhetorical points is a slimy tactic, and it is insulting to those who survived the Holocaust to raise petty disputes to the level of the worst crime in history.** > > The comparison between climate denialists and other denialists should come from the fact that they argue the exact same way, and it should end there. Holocaust denial and climate change denial share many features, as does evolution denialism, HIV/AIDS denialism, vaccine crankery, 9/11 trutherism etc., that is they use rhetorical tricks to deny a body of evidence that contradicts an ideological position. In fact, Deborah Lipstadt’s Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory is an excellent book to read because in rigorously exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of Holocaust denial, she also uncovers the tactics used by other denialists. > > Holocaust deniers have conspiracy theories to explain away the documentary evidence and personal experiences of holocaust survivors. The first Holocaust denier Paul Rassinier alleged a zionist/soviet conspiracy to invent the Holocaust. They latch on to minor inconsistencies in the historical records of extremely complex events to suggest that the records are flawed, or that vastly fewer Jews were murdered by the Nazis. They cite historical evidence from revisionists like David Irving, a fake expert who was very publicly castigated for shoddy and outright false scholarship after he made the mistake of suing Deborah Lipstadt for libel in Britain over her book (a classic silencing move by denialists). Holocaust deniers create impossible expectations for the level of evidence required to prove the holocaust occurred. Finally, logical fallacies, like David Irving’s attempt to create a moral equivalency between the Allies and the Nazis for the allied bombing of Dresden is a classic tu quoque. > > Climate change denialism shares all of these features. Denialists like Inhofe (Morano’s boss) allege a global warming “hoax”. This conspiracy theory suggests that thousands of scientists worldwide are all operating from the same playbook (the Protocols of the Al Gore), falsifying data for the purpose of creating regulations to restrict business, and secretly working to create one world government. Or that somehow peer-review and grant rewards only go to those who back the consensus, the classic “grantsmanship” conspiracy theory that is contradicted by the fact that scientists encourage and reward revolutionary results as long as they are well-grounded in data. It sounds ridiculous, but these are their arguments. How one could possibly manage to make thousands of people fabricate evidence for peer reviewed journals all to say the same thing and not be detected is beyond belief. And before the cranks show up and suggest the East Anglia emails are of any significance, let’s move on to number two: > > The cherry picking of papers, often from journals that are overrun by cranks like Energy and Environment, and even the cherry-picking of individual data points or time periods is rampant. The theft of the East Anglia emails, which were then cherry-picked and quoted out of context to create the false appearance of deception on the part of scientists is another excellent example. Despite the actions of the involved scientists being cleared by multiple investigations of the emails (context is everything), denialists still harp about climategate as if it’s actually a thing. Instead it’s excellent evidence of their willingness to engage in dishonest editing to serve their ideological goals, just as creationists will attempt to misquote Darwin or other evolutionary biologists out of context to suggest they’re really skeptical of evolution or racist. > [@](#): > > The real way to win over the undecided is to attack the tactics of the denialist, to educate people that denialist rhetoric is not legitimate debate, and to mock the fools that think that “God will protect us” is a legitimate scientific argument. Debates should have minimal standards, including intellectual honesty and substance, and scientific debate should have even higher standards including reliance on peer-review and publication in legitimate scientific journals. Climate change denialism does not meet the standards for legitimate debate, it relies on conspiracy theories, bogus experts, cherry-picked data, crank journals, and appeals to the almighty. Climate change denialism is rightly criticized for being denialist, but moral comparisons of these denialists to the anti-Semitic deniers of the Holocaust is a distraction, and will not help sway anyone to the side of science. ---
**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 14, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/90 "2012-08-14T00:37:27Z")
I fins it difficult to understand what all these quotes have to do with ATMB. This is turning into a GD. ---
**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 14, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/91 "2012-08-14T01:00:04Z")
> [@Cicero](#): > > I fins it difficult to understand what all these quotes have to do with ATMB. This is turning into a GD. Well, it is just pointing out that this may be one of the most recursive points ever made by the ones supporting ignorance, once again, their idea is an attempt at censorship, and to attach themselves to already defined therms like “skeptic”, when scientists and even reporters of science know **that even this point is a myth itself** (that the word “denier” is by itself an insult) the big guns and evidence have to be mentioned for support, specially when many do appear to just have plain normal little ignorance, there was already a poster that sincerely thought that most of the basis of this is not at the same level of things like evolution, and therefore there must be a huge debate going among scientists or that this was invented just recently. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/92 "2012-08-14T01:58:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > there was already a poster that sincerely thought that most of the basis of this is not at the same level of things like evolution, and therefore there must be a huge debate going among scientists or that this was invented just recently. I’m going to make the reasonably safe assumption that there is at least a solid 14% chance you could be talking about me. I won’t go too far on a tangent here in ATMB, just one quick question: do you think the scientific community in general would agree with you that AGW evidence is as conclusive and non-controversial as evolution? ---
**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 14, 2012, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/93 "2012-08-14T03:24:14Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I’m going to make the reasonably safe assumption that there is at least a solid 14% chance you could be talking about me. > > I won’t go too far on a tangent here in ATMB, just one quick question: do you think the scientific community in general would agree with you that AGW evidence is as conclusive and non-controversial as evolution? You did not check the video by Richard Alley huh? He explains it better than I can, but suffice to say, it is mostly in the areas like what clouds will ultimately do, will they become mostly a negative or positive feedback? Will extreme weather become worse (hurricanes, tornadoes), the point is that one should not wait to act just because \*\*some \*\*pieces of the puzzle are harder to figure (The longer that this goes, regarding clouds, it is more likely that clouds are not harming or helping, or that their effect in the whole climate change of the earth is of such a small scale that they may eventually be ignored for practical reasons). For other items, the evidence is overwhelming. This includes items like the one that says that human emissions of CO2 are driving the current warming. And the science is telling us that the risks are so enormous of getting worsening climate in many regions of the earth (This is not referring to extremes like hurricanes and tornadoes, but the more likely worsening droughts and ocean rise and acidification) that it is appalling that we are not doing much, even more appalling that basic economics tell us that it would be cheaper to deal with it now rather than wait when things get worse. (Actually, what makes it worse is that some political groups even go to the extreme of telling us that even preparing for the most likely outcomes is not needed as they claim that there is no problem at all) Just like in evolution, one not just drops the whole theory just because there are doubts about an item like punctuated equilibrium. Most of the basis of the theory of evolution remains solid to this day. ---
**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 14, 2012, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/94 "2012-08-14T05:16:23Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > There is no problem with the term’s meaning in Spanish. In English the term isn’t neutral. The quintescential denier is the Holocaust denier, it’s a heaviliy loaded term. Seriously Aji, I only made the Holocaust connection upthread. To my American ears, if “Denier” has any connotations at all, they are Freudian, not mid-20th century central European. (i.e. some people are said to be “In denial” when they are failing to observe the obvious because it’s too emotionally uncomfortable. But that’s “In denial” and not “Denier” _per se_). I’ll add that about a third of my high school class were Jewish, so I am _somewhat_ attuned to these concerns. One thing “Denier” does denote is that the subject is denying a mainstream viewpoint. But among climate scientists this is indeed the case. That temperatures and CO2 levels rose during the 20th century isn’t controversial. That greenhouse gases exist and tend to warm the earth is pure physics and is demonstrated most vividly by Venus, whose surface temperatures exceed that of Mercury. It’s the dose-response relationship that’s in question, partly because of the many confounding factors, some offsetting, others exacerbating. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/95 "2012-08-14T06:20:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You did not check the video by Richard Alley huh? > > He explains it better than I can, but suffice to say, it is mostly in the areas like what clouds will ultimately do, will they become mostly a negative or positive feedback? Will extreme weather become worse (hurricanes, tornadoes), the point is that one should not wait to act just because \*\*some \*\*pieces of the puzzle are harder to figure (The longer that this goes, regarding clouds, it is more likely that clouds are not harming or helping, or that their effect in the whole climate change of the earth is of such a small scale that they may eventually be ignored for practical reasons). For other items, the evidence is overwhelming. This includes items like the one that says that human emissions of CO2 are driving the current warming. > > And the science is telling us that the risks are so enormous of getting worsening climate in many regions of the earth (This is not referring to extremes like hurricanes and tornadoes, but the more likely worsening droughts and ocean rise and acidification) that it is appalling that we are not doing much, even more appalling that basic economics tell us that it would be cheaper to deal with it now rather than wait when things get worse. (Actually, what makes it worse is that some political groups even go to the extreme of telling us that even preparing for the most likely outcomes is not needed as they claim that there is no problem at all) > > Just like in evolution, one not just drops the whole theory just because there are doubts about an item like punctuated equilibrium. Most of the basis of the theory of evolution remains solid to this day. Awesome post. But I was hoping you would answer my question: Do you think the scientific community in general would agree with you that AGW evidence is as conclusive and non-controversial as evolution? ---
**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 14, 2012, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/96 "2012-08-14T06:50:16Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Awesome post. > > But I was hoping you would answer my question: Do you think the scientific community in general would agree with you that AGW evidence is as conclusive and non-controversial as evolution? Sorry but your extreme demands are showing :), in practical terms the scientific community \*\*agrees \*\*that the evidence is AGW is as concussive, and there is really no controversy, as Richard Alley would tell you there is controversy on some items, but on the whole, not enough to justify inaction or the denial of the evidence and science found so far. Or in other words, as an environmental scientist Dr Haydn Washington would say: > **[Q and A with Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial](https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=728)** > [@](#): > > Q [to Dr. Haydn] You discuss probability and uncertainty. Isn’t the climate science settled? > > Yes - but with a qualifier! This is where deniers love to confuse the issue. In science nothing is 100% settled. Science doesn’t ‘prove’ anything, it provides the most probable explanation for observations. However, when something is more than 95% likely it is generally accepted as true. There is always something scientists don’t understand completely in any field of science. However, a consensus does build up and becomes the mainstream view. This has happened with climate science over the last few decades. Each year brings more evidence to confirm this consensus. It is important to understand that the 10% of a field we don’t fully understand does not refute the 90% of the field that we do. That is the case with climate science. We know we are warming the Earth and this will have huge impacts. We know enough to act, yet denial is holding us back from doing this. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/97 "2012-08-14T14:08:46Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > There is no problem with the term’s meaning in Spanish. In English the term isn’t neutral. Thequintescential denier is the Holocaust denier, it’s a heaviliy loaded term. Bullshit. I’ll agree with you that the term “denier” isn’t neutral, it conveys the idea that one opinion is accepted as fact and the other opinion is a rejection of that fact. It looks to the person’s motivations rather than their argument. But there’s not reason to conclude use of the term “denier” is meant in any way to suggest “Holocaust denier”, or to make the audience associate them with their distaste for racists. It’s a word, and it’s appropriate for at least some of the ones so labeled. It may not be conducive to constructive debate to label one’s opponent that way, but it certainly isn’t the same thing as even calling them an “idiot”. ---
**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 14, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/98 "2012-08-14T16:44:11Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, it is just pointing out that this may be one of the most recursive points ever made by the ones supporting ignorance, once again, their idea is an attempt at censorship, and to attach themselves to already defined therms like “skeptic”, when scientists and even reporters of science know **that even this point is a myth itself** (that the word “denier” is by itself an insult) the big guns and evidence have to be mentioned for support, specially when many do appear to just have plain normal little ignorance, there was already a poster that sincerely thought that most of the basis of this is not at the same level of things like evolution, and therefore there must be a huge debate going among scientists or that this was invented just recently. Since none of those who would be affected by the word “denier” prompted the ban, it’s irrelevant for this particular ATMB thread (and the original one) what others do. Simple question: Can climate skeptics exist? > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Seriously Aji, I only made the Holocaust connection upthread. To my American ears, if “Denier” has any connotations at all, they are Freudian, not mid-20th century central European. (i.e. some people are said to be “In denial” when they are failing to observe the obvious because it’s too emotionally uncomfortable. But that’s “In denial” and not “Denier” _per se_). I’ll add that about a third of my high school class were Jewish, so I am _somewhat_ attuned to these concerns. > > One thing “Denier” does denote is that the subject is denying a mainstream viewpoint. But among climate scientists this is indeed the case. That temperatures and CO2 levels rose during the 20th century isn’t controversial. That greenhouse gases exist and tend to warm the earth is pure physics and is demonstrated most vividly by Venus, whose surface temperatures exceed that of Mercury. It’s the dose-response relationship that’s in question, partly because of the many confounding factors, some offsetting, others exacerbating. > [@Irishman](#): > > Bullshit. I’ll agree with you that the term “denier” isn’t neutral, it conveys the idea that one opinion is accepted as fact and the other opinion is a rejection of that fact. It looks to the person’s motivations rather than their argument. But there’s not reason to conclude use of the term “denier” is meant in any way to suggest “Holocaust denier”, or to make the audience associate them with their distaste for racists. > > It’s a word, and it’s appropriate for at least some of the ones so labeled. It may not be conducive to constructive debate to label one’s opponent that way, but it certainly isn’t the same thing as even calling them an “idiot”. I take back my Holocaust comments to stop this sidetrack. What I still don’t know is what prompted the ban on “denier” and “deluded” for that specific thread. Was it reported by someone? ---
**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 14, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/99 "2012-08-14T16:53:54Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Since none of those who would be affected by the word “denier” prompted the ban, it’s irrelevant for this particular ATMB thread (and the original one) what others do. > Simple question: Can climate skeptics exist? No doubt about it as mentioned before. The only issue is that there is a need of being aware of what was already discussed and the levels of the current areas of doubt. ---
**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 15, 2012, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931/100 "2012-08-15T01:37:00Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Simple question: Can climate skeptics exist? With respect, you might want to update your question, to wit: can _informed_ global warming skeptics exist in 2012? In 1992 Nordhaus advocated an optimal carbon tax of $5, and said that it was too small to bother with if passed in a revenue neutral manner. The low figure was tied to his social rate of discount. He has kept his model, but if I understand it correctly harms have moved closer with the passage of time, so now he’s up to $30/ton. Recently he penned the column, “[Why Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/)”. Anyway, c. 1992 I’d characterize Nordhaus as a Global Warming Skeptic. c. 2007-8, I’d say that he’s dovish on the topic, if not quite a dove. > [@](#): > > I take back my Holocaust comments to stop this sidetrack. > > What I still don’t know is what prompted the ban on “denier” and “deluded” for that specific thread. Was it reported by someone? Well, “Deluded” is certainly a loaded expression. “Confused” might be better, though still derogatory. “AGW theory advocate” has problems of tone that are comparable to “AGW theory denier” IMHO: both concerns are very mild: I don’t see a problem with either in polite debate. Heh. Here’s a good slam for those who accept mainstream climate science: call them “The warming establishment”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mods-you-are-playing-their-ignorant-game-if-climate-change-deniers-is-offlimits/630931.md?page=6)