“Doubt, indulged and cherished, is in danger of becoming denial; but if honest, and bent on thorough investigation, it may soon lead to full establishment of the truth.” – Ambrose Bierce
The reasons for using the term “skeptics” to identify some of those who question climate science and “deniers” for others are discussed at:
- Evolution & Climate Deniers: The Redux Edition
- Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?
- That “Denier vs Septic” thing again
- Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers
- How to be a real sceptic (RealClimate)
- About denialism
- Skepticism
- Climate change: The semantics of denial (George Monbiot)
- climate denial is not skepticism!
- Climate change deniers are ‘flat-earthers’
- Six Aspects of Denial
- Denialism: Climate Change, Holocaust & Evolution
- Climate Change Fundamentalism
- Climate change creationists
- Intelligent design/creationism and climate change
- Septics and skeptics; denialists and contrarians
- Why Global Warming is a Lie
Index
- About Deniers (On Greenfyre)
- The Denier Canon
- Who are they?
- Analysis of Deniers and their behaviour:
- The Psychology of Climate Denial
- Just for fun
The Climate Change Denial Industry
The American Denial of Global Warming
About Deniers (On Greenfyre)
- Climate Change Deniers: More Fraud Artists than Skeptics
- Climate Change Denial: Nothing but Lies and Frauds
- Evolution / Global Warming Deniers just don’t get it
- It’s Twins!: Evolution and Climate Change Deniers
- That “Denier vs Septic” thing again
- Denier Myths Debunked
- Real Climate Wiki (Deniers & Denier Myths Debunked)
Professional Deniers: Who are they?
How many are there?
- List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming : a few dozen
- List at RealClimate Wiki : a few dozen scientists
- Heartland International Conference on Climate Change: 19 Scientists
- Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC): 23 individuals from 15 countries, including a handful of scientists
- Fraud & Hoax Lists – NOT actually Deniers
- Smoke and CO2: How to Spin Global Warming
- The Climate Change Lobby
- Deniers evolution from ozone to climate change
- Where there’s smoke, the climate change Denial lobby
- Environmental Skeptics Are Overwhelmingly Politicized, Study Says
- Exxon Secrets
- Global Warming: Heated Denials
- Manufacturing Uncertainty … Industry’s War on Science
- Science: The Skeptics
- Smoke and CO2: How to Spin Global Warming
- The denial industry
- The Truth About Denial
- Who is behind climate change deniers?
- Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change (pdf)
Analysis of Deniers and their behaviour:
- About Denialism
- Denialist Tactics
- How to be a Denier
- Will the real skeptics please stand up?
- When Skeptics Go Bad: From Climate Skeptics to 9/11 Truthers (Lay Science)
The Psychology of Climate Denial
- Dan Gilbert on the psychology of global warming
- The Psychology of Denial: our failure to act against climate change
- Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology
- Are Human Beings Hard-Wired to Ignore the Threat of Catastrophic Climate Change?
- Sourcing Skepticism … what factors drive questioning of Global Warming?
- The real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science
- How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth
- Contrarians and consensus: The case of the midwife toad
Academic
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
This page has the following sub pages.
I’d like to make one addition on this that you may appreciate: The Psychology of Global Warming, by Daniel Gilbert. (Two parts; second part in the related vids.) It goes into the psychology of denial in the context of climate, focusing on WHY people fall into this impulse and why we aren’t champing at the bit to combat climate change. Very easy to follow.
(On a side note, to consolidate comments, on the “Science” link above, Wonderingmind42’s (not Wandering) videos aren’t based around science. Fundamentally, they’re based around risk assessment and psychology; only two of his videos (Nature of Science and Mechanics of GCC) are science-related, the rest are based around evaluating evidence and determining action. Just in the interest of honesty.)
—-
The science of human behaviour is left out of the science of climate change. Scepticism and denial are aspects. More important is “What do a hundred rats do in a cage made for ten?”
We may be expending resources to stop the tide from coming in, instead of preparing for mass migrations and billions of deaths.
—-
[…] who continue to deny man-made climate change is a real threat, though not nearly as strong as some (here, here, or here). He has tremendous regard for the scientific process and is clear when he’s […]
[…] true, just like the Deniers say, Global Warming is over … again, and again, and again. Not as often as they claim it is, but […]
[…] mostly BS. It’s right up there with your "global cooling in the 1970s" nonsense. Even a cursory look at your list shows its failings. Ironically, I have no idea what "list" you are talking about. I […]
Well, Greeffyre, this is where you hang out. I wondered what had happened to you after my final post of 18th December on http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/dangerous-human-caused-warming-can-neither-be-demonstrated-nor-measured/. You never responded – I wonder why!
My post of 29th October on that blog was a copy of a paper of mine which forms the basis of a challenge that I issue to all devout believers in significant human-made climate change. I repeat my latest challlenge on believer Mark Lynas’s blog at http://www.marklynas.org/2009/1/23/a-new-green-era-is-already-unfolding.
“This is the challenge that I issue to any “believer”. None have yet responded to it with sound scientific arguments. I challenge you to take up the same challenge that I issued to dedicated environmentalists Jonathan Porritt, his “Forum for the Future” charity, his “Sustainable Development Commission”, Mark Lynas, etc. etc. etc. This challenge is to refute the scientific findings of the experts summarised in my paper “Politicization of Climate Change & CO2”, available on the Climate Science Coalition Web-site at:- http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1.
I refer you to my post of 28th Feb. on Jonathan Porritt’s “Green New Deals” blog. This challenge has been persistently ignored by environmentalists because you have no sound scientific facts to back up your support of the myth about significant human-made global warming.”
You seem unable to debate climate change in a reasoned scientific manner, only able to hurl childish insults at anyone who dares to challenge your ill-considered opinions. I hope that this time you can come back with conctructive scientific arguments that move the debate forward, rather than simply repeating your environmentalist dogma.
Try reading the comments on Mark Lynas’s and Jonathan Porritt’s various blogs, sought out a reasoned response then get back to me.
I recomment that all of you environmentalists who believe that huimans cause significant global warming visit and carefully read Dr. Spencer’s comments at http://www.drroyspencer.com.
Note that “Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil”, so don’t bother coming back with the usual environmentalist claim that “he’s in the pay of the oil companies”.
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic.
I
[…] all know that many climate change Deniers have a habit of seizing upon any “record cold day” or unseasonal cold spell as being […]
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
[…] For more information on the psychology and more on deniers and skeptics, see: (thanks for this list to greenfyre) […]
[…] a humiliating defeat for the climate change Deniers who make such false claims as ”many scientists dispute’ and ‘there is no consensus. The […]
How odd, I’m a AGW skeptic and so I don’t really have any idea how the other side of the debate see things, until coming here, very revealing. I am amazed to find a whole sub-culture or conspiracy and spiritual science belief. No, I don’t consult with like-minded skeptics in shadowed boardrooms with big oil execs, I’m not sure I actually know anyone who hasn’t bought the AGW line, I am alone in my world, it’s not a nice place to be, I’ve lost friends over this subject because of the emotionalism that it has been invested with. Now I find out I am a murderer of people who haven’t even been born yet. This is the weather we’re talking about, it used to be a bland topic of conversation you’d turn to to avoid talking about politics or religion. Science has been the loser and that’s the real shame. As of today no one has been able to establish the link between human induced CO2 and global warming, not even close to it, it’s an old and outmoded belief. Really, I’m supposed to take seriously anyone if I know they are believers of Al Gore’s clumsy power-point presentation or subscribe to Gaea belief. Can we just keep this whole thing within the realm of actual scientific evidence only [1] and stop the name calling. People freak out now if there’s a storm, as if this is an unusual event never before seen, even the PM makes childish claims that a hot day in one state is proof positive of a global warming trend, this must be a little worrying even to people who consider that AGW is a viable theory. Any way I’ve said my piece and that will be all from me. Let the name calling begin.
—-
[…] “Climate change Deniers hoax themselves … again.” For all the Sturm und Drang and Denier promises of “final coffin nails”, there doesn’t actually seem to be anything to the story. […]
So are you going to switch and start treating Global Warming believers now that all the fraud, lies and cheating has been revealed? Without integrity and honest review NONE of the so called peer reviewed papers have any scientific merit what so ever.
The Harry README file makes it very clear that even with three years, access to the code, the data and the people the much praised climate model could not be duplicated. If you can not duplicated it it ain’t science!
Even if you do not understand computer code this is pretty obvious and shows “mike’s trick”
From 1881 to 1940 the code uses 3/4 of the actual temperature values plus a fudge factor. No wonder the graph of the fudged data shows global warming! These so called scientists are very sick people and should be institutionalized!
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro
Computer code:
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940]
Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(…)
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
this function take three quarters of the real temperature value after adding the following amounts to the temperature data for the years 1881 to 1940
0
0
0
0
0
-0.1
-0.25
-0.3
0
-0.1
0.3
0.8
1.2
1.7
2.5
2.6
2.6
—-
There are at least two versions of that “artificial correction” in the code base. In one of those two versions, the line that actually plots a graph is commented out, whereas in the other version, it is not commented out. It is apparently used in Osborn, Briffa, Schweingruber and Jones, 2004. Whether its use is legitimate or not is a topic for another debate.
—-
The commented-out line is in briffa_sep98_e.pro.
The same code is not commented out in harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro.
Check for yourself.
Also, read Osborn et al yourself.
Correction: commented out in briffa_sep98_d.pro
Your response to Corrine Novak was dismissive, childish and petulant. The further I have read this blog, which I actually began reading with considerable interest, the more I have become convinced that you are incapable of actually responding intelligently to someone who actually presents evidence, despite your continual rebuffs to posts that do not present evidence. You can give it out, but you can’t take it. Childish and weak. I’m outa here.
—-
Jack,
This is absurd. Greenfyre’s “dismissive” responses are to those who never present evidence other than the same dishonest rubbish repeated endlessly in denialist blogs.
I think that this site is running out of steam, just when we need to be most energetic, is because of ad hominem and personal attacks.
We need to ” Work hard and be Kind ” to achieve civilized and productive discourse.
Hi,
Maybe it’s worth considering a more dialectical idea.
What I have found is that the civility or politeness of many people I speak with is often a disguise for the power relation in the interaction: profit, patriarchy, racism, sexism.
Politeness can have nothing to do with any real respect for others i.e., democracy.
It may be more respectful of others, and more honest an interaction with denialists, to point out the reality of their anti-science lies and fraud, and the real interests at play.
When there is little time for exegesis, pointing out that someone is an ‘idiot’ may pretty much sum things up. 🙂
p.s. The reason the site may be ‘running out of steam’ could be that Greenfyre has not posted his articles or administered site policy for many months. The ignorance and opportunism of denialist spam on open forums is not productive or of much interest if it can be posted with no accountability.
cheers
I am hearing ” Liberal Speak ” when I want to hear ” Science . ”
What you have written would pass as amusing self parody if it was not hurting our common cause.
Your comment wasn’t about the science.
Your previous comment was about your belief that the green movement is causing the public to doubt the facts of the science, so it wasn’t about the science, either.
If you want to write about how you think the green movement could better contribute to society, why not submit a guest post to S2.
cheers
[…] In fact, denialist is a better definition of what he describes rather than skeptic.This also suggests the difference between a scientific skeptic and a denialist. The former will go from withholding judgement to recognizing the facts while the latter simply digs their heels in and continues denying. Here is a very good reference, that could probably be updated, demonstrating the difference. […]
—-
You’re incredibly rude. How is this in the wrong thread? It’s relevant because you who deny that there is something fishy in the emails and codes are the real deniers, while we who change our opinions as the evidence changes are the true skeptics.
—-
WTF? This is not your blog. You could at least take notice of the comments policy.
This thread is about the difference between deniers/denialists and genuine sceptics. I’ve noticed that one of those differences is the ability to recognise the topic of a thread and adhere to it.
Erm, take it easy guys. Don’t blame each other, speak and think twice. We discussed not blame each other. I’m sorry, this is just my voice, you can denied it if necessary.
—-
Hey Guys,
Climate_Denier_Liars arc up at UN Chief
Who wants to start the ball rolling in rebutting these Deniers?
___________ text copy of received open letter ___________
URL: http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
—-
Did you really have to paste in the whole thing?
—-
[…] which are ever more evident in our own lives. While we must continue the momentum to isolate Deniers even more, the real battle turns to “what should be […]
[…] Greenfyre […]
Do you deny the Medieval Warm Period?
—-
“New to denialism” is one of many sock-puppets created by Andy Scrase.
This is his blog. (Such as it is)
Sometimes he posts as “New to denialism”
Sometimes it’s “Old to denialism”.
And “Worthless Troll”
And “A human”.
And “A true believer”.
Probably a few others too.
He started doing his sock-puppetry a few days ago at “Open Parachute”.
See here and here.
The guy’s genuinely unstable.
He believes that the communists have taken over not just the IPCC but also the whole of Europe.
Here’s what he said…
Cedric Katesby: Do you really believe that the IPCC is interested in “unsubstantiated propoganda”?
Is that how the scientific world operates?
Seriously?”
Andy Scrace: Yes, you got it! Hard left marxist driven statist IPCC.
(…Later…)
Cedric Katesby: How did you find out that the IPCC were all “Hard Left Marxists”?
That’s quite a bit of stunning detective work.
Amazing really.
What evidence do you have to support such a jaw-dropping claim?
How come nobody else (including NASA and the AGU and the USGS and the Royal Society etc) are mentioning this?
Could it be that they all have been taken over by “Hard Left Marxists” too?
All of them?
Really?
Do tell.
Give us all the details.
It sounds…fascinating.
Andy Scrace: As for “hard left”, well you only need to look a the EU and see how it is destroying the UK economy through its marxist totalitarian views and its obsession with climate change.
The lights will go out in about 5 years in theUK.,
Their energy policy has nowhere to go. All driven by IPCC myopia.
[…] … https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/where-th … https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/# … who spout Denier […]
We are hurting our Green cause when we let our
passion distort our science.
We are right, they are wrong. But we must be true
to our science to be convincing.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-00144feab49a.html
Hey Greenie, just what part of climate science has been distorted?
Me thinks you are colour blind since you do not appear to be green at all but are a concern troll.
Oh ,say the part about presentation of the unvarnished data.
oops, here is the article:
Global warming graph attacked by study
By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
Published: April 14 2010 19:51 | Last updated: April 14 2010 19:51
A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years.
Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.
“It used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming],” he said.
The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the “Climategate” e-mail scandal had behaved “honestly and fairly” and showed “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”.
The e-mails were hacked last autumn from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. They caused a storm, as they appeared to show scientists manipulating and concealing data.
Although Wednesday’s report – commissioned by UEA with advice from the Royal Society, the UK’s prestigious national science academy – exonerated the unit’s scientists, it criticised climate experts for failures in handling statistics.
“It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the report concluded.
The hockey stick graph was a key part of the scandal. In the e-mails, UEA’s Professor Phil Jones referred to a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures suggested by certain sources of data. A similar trick was used in the hockey stick graph.
The UEA scientists said that “trick” merely referred to a scientific technique – an explanation accepted by some sceptics, including Lord Lawson, former Tory chancellor.
Prof Hand said his criticisms should not be seen as invalidating climate science. He pointed out that although the hockey stick graph – which dates from a study led by US climate scientist Michael Mann in 1998 – exaggerates some effects, the underlying data show a clear warming signal.
He accused sceptics of “identifying a few particular issues and blowing them up” to distort the true picture. The handful of errors found so far, including the exaggerated hockey stick graph and a mistaken claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, were “isolated incidents”, he said. “If you look at any area of science, you would be able to find odd examples like this. It doesn’t detract from the vast bulk of the conclusions,” he said.
The report into the science produced by UEA, which came from a panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, a scientist and former Shell chairman, was the second investigation into Climategate in the UK. The first, by a committee of MPs, also found the scientists innocent of manipulating data, though it said they may have breached Freedom of Information legislation.
An investigation into the scientists’ handling of FOI requests is still under way.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.
Greenie, did you even bother to read the actual report? The article in the FT is full of lies (as usual).
This “quote” supposedly made by David Hand in the Oxburgh Report has been making the rounds of the denier sites, it is a lie and is not from the Oxburgh Report:
Why are deniers such despicable liars? Oh yes, if they told the truth they would have nothing to say to argue against AGW.
The Oxburgh Report can be found here:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel
Ian you’re right.
Playing ‘pretend’ is a very popular strategy with the denialosphere.
Thank you for calling it and providing a link to real information.
[…] true, just like the Deniers say, Global Warming is over … again, and again, and again. Not as often as they claim it is, but […]
Good call Ian.
“Greenie’s” parents didn’t bring him up right. They should have taught him that lying is wrong.
Bad “Greenie”. Deceitful “Greenie”.
Yeah, i agree with Cedric Katesby. This is what should they do at least from now on.
No Kidding , Sherlock !
I am “Humanaterian” , your worst nightmare , the one whose postings you have been deleting for MONTHS.
Congratulations for taking only three Months to defrock me as a fraud.
Martha sensed it first.
Kudos, Martha.
Happy Earth Day,
Imposter
Greenie is “Humanaterian”
Out of the root cellar.
Ian you’re right.
[…] nation these days. But it is more than that too. This commemoration can be seen in the denial of climate change (and here), of evolution, and in the political arena, the myths about President Obama (and here), […]
You Alarmists fold like a cardboard suitcase in acid rain.
Where is your science , now that your movement has stalled ?
The time for attacks and insults has passed.
You won that round. Congratulations.
Now let’s see some convincing science.
Earth may be too hot for humans by 2300: study
AFP – Wednesday, May 12
SYDNEY (AFP) – – Climate change could make much of the world too hot for human habitation within just three centuries, research released Tuesday showed.
Scientists from Australia’s University of New South Wales and Purdue University in the United States found that rising temperatures in some places could mean humans would be unable to adapt or survive.
“It would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about seven degrees Celsius (13 Fahrenheit), calling the habitability of some regions into question,” the researchers said in a paper.
“With 11-12 degrees Celsius warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed.”
Researcher Professor Steven Sherwood said there was no chance of the earth heating up to seven degrees this century, but there was a serious risk that the continued burning of fossil fuels could create the problem by 2300.
“There’s something like a 50/50 chance of that over the long term,” he said.
The study — which examined climate change over a longer period than most other research — looked at the “heat stress” produced by combining the impact of rising temperatures and increased humidity.
Sherwood said climate change research had been “short-sighted” not to probe the long-term consequences of the impact of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
“It needs to be looked at,” he told AFP. “There’s not much we can do about climate change over the next two decades but there’s still a lot we can do about the longer term changes.”
In a commentary on the paper, published in the US-based Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Australian National University academics said climate change would not stop in 2100.
“And under realistic scenarios out to 2300, we may be faced with temperature increases of 12 degrees (Celsius) or even more,” Professor Tony McMichael said.
“If this happens, our current worries about sea level rise, occasional heatwaves and bushfires, biodiversity loss and agricultural difficulties will pale into insignificance beside a major threat — as much as half the currently inhabited globe may simply become too hot for people to live there.”
“Humanitarian” not “Humanaterian”.
[…] massively debunked propaganda ploy seriously. Oregon Petition This fraud is the source of the Denier myth that (variously) 17,000, 30,000, 60,000 etc "scientists have signed a petition denying […]
Can’t you please show our Green Movement some respect ?
Green science cannot stand on it’s own. So We had
to turn it into a ” Movement.”
Now you bring it back to science.
A pox on YOU.
Can you be a bit less obvious in your trolling? There is no Tuvalu Island…
[…] anti-science Climate Cranks and Climate Zombies (too often incorrectly called ’skeptics’) have already damaged our prosperity and health while undermining our future economic prospects and […]
The path we take as far as capping carbon emissions, investing in green technologies, etc. will affect our economy one way or another. The issue also affects our relationship with other countries. The international community is pretty displeased at our lack of action during the Bush years. Ironically, China is stepping up as a global leader in global climate change issues (even though they’re currently one of the largest polluters). I’ve heard arguments that this may propel China into their desired status as world super-power. The longer we refuse to do anything and China is seen as taking action, the more likely countries are to begin favoring China in trade deals, etc. They already own half our economy. If we don’t take action it could be the end of America as a world super power.
Obviously the Chinese have the advantage of being behind, and can thus see what happens if you blindly go where others (the West) have gone before. Obviously, China realises that there is a limited amount of fossil fuels, and that it can’t grow to the same extent as the Western economies without a consistent supply of energy. Thus, they are already well on their way of creating a more sustainable economy (which doesn’t mean they won’t pollute, or even that they won’t pollute much). I’m afraid the US is already too far out, politically, to be taking any significant action in the next 10 years. The only thing that can ‘save’ the US is a disaster. A disastrous hurricane season for example, even if not related to climate change, will sway those who are at present swayed to the “oh no, this will ruin our economy!” side. Oil prices suddenly going up may also get some people to think again. A major f-up at a coal mine in the US. It’s these kind of things that many people need, and they’re sadly not the most rational reasons to take action…
Not sure why this cut and paste is circulating. The lack of response in America to climate change is set to continue the decline of American superpower status, but it is not causing this relative decline in status. The cause is in the inter-related shifts in international politics, especially the politics of international labour — which I agree has happened under the watch of American ultra-conservatives and old-time libertarians who have instead been busy trying to maintain Bush-era economic myths.
[…] Denier vs Skeptic […]
[…] / Oregon Petition This fraud is the source of the Denier myth that (variously) 17,000, 30,000, 60,000 etc "scientists have The Oregon Petition is a […]
[…] https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic […]
[…] modern temperatures were entering ranges simply not seen over (at least) the past 1000 years. Legitimate climate skeptics had wondered whether modern temperatures were really out of whack with recent (past several […]
[…] being a hard-headed Ayn Rand libertarian aligns with being a climate denier and predicts embrace of tin-foil conspiracy theories, what makes one more likely to accept science? […]
[…] question from another commentator with perhaps the clearest differentiation between a science skeptic and denier that I have ever seen. As we seek to inform others about the perils of anti-science syndrome, such […]
I’m afraid that you and your denier buddies haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about. The correct terms are realists who understand the science and are by nature “skeptical”. You and your buddies are “deniers” since you deny the science and the consequences of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. You are definitely not “skeptics” since you cherry pick and never check with the actual science as found in the peer reviewed scientific literature. You constantly give out misinformation, see for example Tim Ball’s lies on “cooling for the last 17 years” which he has repeated at least twice in the past few weeks on John O’Sullivan’s “Principia Scientific International” site. There you will find a real cabal of deniers who deny more than just AGW. The funny thing is they all think that they are leaders in their fields, a classic case of a Dunning Kruger epidemic.
Hi, Ian,
Nicely summarized.
I think that it is interesting and important, up to a point, to try to understand why they have such obviously wrong beliefs and inaccurate self-perceptions.
But we’ve passed that point.
M
[…] Denier vs Skeptic I've explained the difference several times. […]
[…] Denier vs Skeptic […]
[…] Climate change Deniers actually were from Mars they would know better than to claim that warming on Mars or any other […]
[…] Who are the”skeptics” Denier vs Skeptic […]