3 ms·

'Deniers' isn't a useful term - in fact, it's the kind of label that is designed to shut down debate. Like "communist" in the McCarthy era, or "defeatist" duri

'Deniers' isn't a useful term - in fact, it's the kind of label that is designed to shut down debate. Like "communist" in the McCarthy era, or "defeatist" during WWI (hat tip to PG for opening my eyes to this). Leaving that aside, my point to the OP was that he was being naive in assuming that calls to limit industry would cease if CFCs were proved to be the sole agent of AGW.

mikeash 13y ago
What term would you use? I can't think of one that's less loaded than "denier", which is at least fairly correct.
- ams6110 13y ago
  skeptic
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I thought of that, but it seems to have far too many sarcastic overtones.
- duncan_bayne 13y ago
  I wouldn't use a term at all. There isn't a convenient description for a group of people whose opinions vary from "God promised he wouldn't drown the Earth, and that's why he creates rainbows" to "we think that CFC levels correlate better with climate data than CO2 levels". Terms like "denier" or "warmist" are only useful if you want to shut down reasoned debate.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I don't know that their opinions are as varied as all that. Certainly they express that full range, but in my experience, they're all just contrarians of one stripe or another at heart, with the "God" or "CFC" stuff being rationalizations that stem from a belief that climate change is false, rather than the other way around. If there were substantial numbers of people going from evidence to the conclusion that climate change is not real, then I could see not labeling them all with the same term, but there isn't.
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  Of all the things about the climate debate, the use of "denier" is the one I despise the most. It's very clearly meant to be pejorative and to up the political rhetoric level. It's taken directly from "holocaust deniers", and that's a shameful association to be making. I can't take anyone who uses the term seriously on the issue, it's just too much of political hack word.

mikeash 13y ago

What term would you use? I can't think of one that's less loaded than "denier", which is at least fairly correct.

ams6110 13y ago
skeptic
- mikeash 13y ago
  I thought of that, but it seems to have far too many sarcastic overtones.
duncan_bayne 13y ago
I wouldn't use a term at all. There isn't a convenient description for a group of people whose opinions vary from "God promised he wouldn't drown the Earth, and that's why he creates rainbows" to "we think that CFC levels correlate better with climate data than CO2 levels". Terms like "denier" or "warmist" are only useful if you want to shut down reasoned debate.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I don't know that their opinions are as varied as all that. Certainly they express that full range, but in my experience, they're all just contrarians of one stripe or another at heart, with the "God" or "CFC" stuff being rationalizations that stem from a belief that climate change is false, rather than the other way around. If there were substantial numbers of people going from evidence to the conclusion that climate change is not real, then I could see not labeling them all with the same term, but there isn't.
waterlesscloud 13y ago
Of all the things about the climate debate, the use of "denier" is the one I despise the most. It's very clearly meant to be pejorative and to up the political rhetoric level. It's taken directly from "holocaust deniers", and that's a shameful association to be making. I can't take anyone who uses the term seriously on the issue, it's just too much of political hack word.