Don’t have to read 'em, hoss. Won’t bother me none.
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.
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.
“There’s glory for you!”
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.
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.
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.
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:
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**.
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. 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.
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.
[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]
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.
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).
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
the Minneaopolis Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/164326886.html?refer=y
Sci-Tech Today: NewsFactor – NewsFactor | CIO Today | Top Tech News | Sci-Tech Today
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
the NJ Star Ledger: Time's up for climate change deniers - nj.com
McClatchy: 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 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/
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.
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
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.
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
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.
[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.]
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?