BPSDB
de·ni·er
dɪˈnaɪ
ər/ [dih-nahy-er]
–noun
a person who denies.
Origin:
Dictionary.com
When a Denier’s behaviour is correctly identified and named the standard response is to plead that they are the victims of an attempt to associate them with Holocaust denial because that is what the word means. Well as it happens, no … that’s not what it means. Actually it means “denier” (see above).
Yes, yes, I know … the climate change Deniers never check anything with accepted, credible sources and reject the legitimacy of any source that contradicts what they believe.
Further, documenting beyond question that they are wrong does not change their thinking or behaviour in any way. Also part of the behaviour is the appeal to pity logical fallacy they use when you point out that they are acting like a Denier, as is the refusal to admit to, much less honestly deal with their behaviour.
These are part of the behaviour set which we call “denial” and if they could respond rationally they wouldn’t be Deniers. That’s part of what being a Denier and being in denial is.
Now to be fair we really should also check:
“climate change deniers“: Climate change deniers are contrarians who challenge the evidence that human activities …. Contrarians pose as skeptics, … True skeptics raise specific doubts about specific claims and do not …”
The Skeptic’s Dictionary
That’s right, true skeptics think Deniers are frauds, and there are good reasons “Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers.”
Just what distinguishes the knee jerk, uncritical, non-thinking behaviour of a Denier vs the legitimate, rational, intellectual process of skepticism is discussed in the various sources found on Denier vs Skeptic. About denialism and Skepticism are also worth reviewing to underscore that the two types of behaviour are not merely different, they are pretty much polar opposites.
There it is. That’s it. Nothing about the Hitler, no mention of Nazis or Holocaust. Nada, zilch, nothing … in fact the term dates from before Nostrodamus, so no one even knew the Holocaust was coming in just a few short centuries.
So if you are a Denier, stop with the phony victimhood act and deal with your behaviour … That was just for show; Deniers also never actually read the references they are given 😉
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
IMAGE CREDITS:
culture of denial by Leonard John Matthews
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.
Greenfyre's 
No. The reason people don’t believe in global warming is because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support CO2 is causing temperatures to rise. (In fact, the evidence supports that CO2 may be causing the temperature to drop instead)
See this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#
If that video doesn’t convince you, nothing will.
—-
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
“I’m so much smarter! I’m so much smarter!”
Andrew, I also accept that someone does not agree with me. But if that person willfully tries to obfuscate (that’ll be you, Andrew), has a clear confirmation bias (that’ll be you, Andrew), and comes with childish comments about supposedly being more intelligent (that’ll be you, Andrew), I know that this person is an outright idiot (that’ll be you, Andrew).
You may want to try your luck with the cdesign proponentsists, they have the same time of flawed logic as you do.
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
This comment has been moved to “Dunces Corner: This is what Denialism looks like” for violating this sites comments policy and meeting the criteria stated on that page.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Deborah Cooper, Green For You. Green For You said: True skeptics think Climate Change Deniers are frauds #green http://bit.ly/bgffw6 […]
This comment has been moved to “Dunces Corner: This is what Denialism looks like” for violating this sites comments policy and meeting the criteria stated on that page.
[…] Denier vs Skeptic IV: Get a dictionary! « Greenfyre's […]
[…] Greenfyre must see what I’ve gotten out of Poptech Andrew. […]
—-
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
Moved to Wut Evah
How to convince people you are using Science?
Dedicate entire posts to petty arguments?
Insult people?
Move any arguments to another place? (or censor them?)[1]
Imply that anyone who objects to being linked with the Nazis is does so because they can’t win an argument? [2]
(In other words, you can insult them as much as you wish and they can’t complain about it)
How easy it is to win the debate! Providing it’s all by your rules of course.[3]
Oh by the way, I did cite scientific works here once and it was dismissed because the site that cited it (but not the scientists involved in the actual paper) “took money from oil companies”. [4]
—-
Greg, I’m sure you can point us to that specific comment, where you claim to have been so poorly treated.
I like to see the response with my own eyes, rather than depend on the interpretation of someone who links the word “denier” with “nazi”. After all, for us, the word “denier” does not imply an automatic link with “nazi”.
—-
“a person who denies”.
But most people in the sceptic camp don’t deny climate is changing or that human activity contributes. Most of them don’t believe the human level of involvement is cause for great trouble or a high percentage of the change.
I know I’m giving you the attention you strive for here and you don’t deserve it, [1] but nobody reading this with any ounce of objectivity or intelligence can sensibly argue that the above description of a “sceptic” fits the dictionary definition of ‘denier’. [2]
In fact the “denier” is anyone who argues that climate [3] – a new, complex and not yet anywhere near fully understood science [4] – change is disastrous or fixed at at certain level of human contribution. Perhaps “bigot” or “zealot” would be a better term. Certainly there’s nothing scientific about such an angle so “ignorant” could also be used. [5]
—-
Greg, there are many types of “deniers”/”skeptics”. One of the most common trait, however, is their denial of most of the science and frequent embracing of mutually exclusive/contradictory reports as argumentation for their position.
A skeptic should be skeptic about everything he sees and reads, evaluate the evidence, and then decide. A denier is selectively skeptic: things that don’t fit his view of the world are questioned, those that do fit (or can easily be made to fit) are immediately embraced.
Greenfyre, I challenge you to a debate on Facebook or any other neutral site of your choosing where you cannot Fisk people’s original comments and take them out of context.
Greg
—-
“I challenge you to a debate on Facebook or any other ‘neutral’ site”
Greg’s excessive personal issues-making and repetitiveness seems to be adding nothing to an objective or rational challenge to the basic science and public discussion of climate change information here.
The ‘Facebook’ part is funny. That model of realism. 😉
But given site goals i.e., realistic discussion about climate change and the furthering of practical and scientific work that is part of the evolving understanding, I don’t think anyone should lie to Greg and pretend it is possible at this point to have a rational discussion with him.
Farewell Greg. 😦
I’ll respond to all those points on any neutral forum of your choosing. Obviously there’s no reason to refuse that unless you know that once you can’t call the shots and edit as you wish, you’ve lost.
—-
As per site policy this comment has been moved to the “Dunce’s Corner” where it belongs.