And sure enough, what this demonstrates is that there are good reasons why a source like Skeptical Science is ignored, this item has already been shot down many times before:
So once again, even the sources of that myth can be identified and the rebuttals that were already made in scientific journals are available. The main point here is that in this subject when all that evidence is available, one should be skeptical of the skeptics.
0 to 66%???!! You’re kidding, aren’t you.
Does your source know absortion in not a linear progression?
As usual, non-responsive. It must be scary to face the truth.
Nope, serious rebuttals don’t work that way, already on several occasions it is clear that you have to refute several surveys or papers that support what that experts are saying, what happens next is just like a telephone hung up on a dial tone repeating “tut tut tut”. What is observed is clear, no good sources can be found by you to support what you claim.
What it is clear is that that is not the case, the links go to the published science, it is only wishful thinking that tells you that what the site reports is at odds with the published science.
Since I never said “it’s at odds”, I only said “pedantic”, you are saying something untrue. I said I didn’t need that website’s explanations of the published science.
]
One link that Gigobuster provided is the Oxford Dictionary. That is about as good as it gets for the English language. In its definition, that dictionary does not suggest at all that the term “denier” is a perjorative. If it is loaded or slanted, it would usually carry a designation saying so.
Can you provide a link to a dictionary of the English language that suggests that the term “denier” is not neutral?
You may be offended by the use of the term “denier.” Have you studied English semantics or linguistics? “The message sent is not always the message received.” Just because you feel offended, that doesn’t mean that the word itself is loaded.
Speaking anecdotally, I have to disagree. The temperatures this past July broke all heat records for the month here and in many places across the US. There was never a hotter July. Further, the hottest day ever on record here was 111 degrees. That was from July also. Here in the South the humidity coupled with that temperature was very “worrysome.” People were told to stay in their houses if they could at all because the temperature was dangerous. And people do die from heat-related problems. Even when I was teaching, the schools closed because of high temperatures.
Also, people who are my age (late sixties) can remember when we used to have very snowy winters. We had only a few snowflakes this past winter. I’ve watched that change for the last fifty years. It will probably snow again, but not as often as it used to. And the math does bare me out.
People can claim just about anything in the world of science. Look for articles in well-known science journals. Peer review is extremely important and these articles published in science journals must provide evidence. Be a little wary of anthing that claims “proof” in science.
“Confused” is not derogatory, Aji. Where do you find a cite for that? Everyone has been confused at one time or another. That’s human. It is also human to be ignorant. Everyone is ignorant about certain things. And being “skeptical” is no sin. Some of us are skeptical of your main source.
And you think that’s because of global warming?
Indeed, one has to be careful on not blaming the recent temperatures to global warming, they still have a natural reason for being, **but global warming makes heat waves worse, more likely, and causes them to last longer. **
It’s too bad no onewho works in the field ever asksthose kinds of questions.
About the inherent negativity, I don’t think it resides in the dictionary definition per se but in its clear, obvious, and intentional implications. Most people on the board do not want to be lumped in with creationists, truthers and birthers. Being labeled as such, it says several things to the rest of the board. It says to other Board members that the denier is incapable or unwilling to understand basic science. No one who professes to be a creationist is taken seriously in evolutionary debates (except by other creationists) and when people try and have any sort of conversation about evolution, they tend to come in and ruin it (by hijacking the real conversation into the inannities of creationism and other junk science).
So too with a climate change denier. Calling some other site or advocate or even a poster a “denier” is to refer to them as someone who, willfully or not, is ignorant of basic science. It does not mean that they’re not addressed (GIGO has infinite patience in that regard), just as creationists are provided with links that retire (or should retire) their hackneyed claims.
It does carry negative implications, but as GIGO said in the OP, because it’s an accurate descriptor, making any sort of generalized rule would cede to the ignorance.
I’m confused by your comment.
My question to the other poster was because he/she seemed to think that the current heat wave in the US could be directly attributed to AGW. Given the immense complexities of our system, it seems ridiculous for someone to do that for a short term local event with any kind of confidence.
What do your links and statement about working in the field have to do with that person’s post?
I don’t care about being called a denier by anonymous people on a message board.
I take back any and all comments that might even tangently would appear that I do care.
I am done with this thread.
Tip your waiter.