Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Buckaroo]

No, this is a fixed rate mortgage, it doesn't change, it's constant, hence linear.

We're talking about the rate, it's fixed at 1%. The principle increase exponentially, the rate is linear. (not the delta, or change)

Ah. It wasn't obvious to me you were talking about the rate, so I misinterpreted your statement. Apologies.

 

[Furcifer]

Ah. It wasn't obvious to me you were talking about the rate, so I misinterpreted your statement. Apologies.

Don't worry, I did the exact same thing backwards. I was talking about ppm, but was thinking about the rate.

The other problem is because the ppm is 300 and the rise has averaged a little less than 3ppm over the last 30 years, both the rate (1%) and the average increase (3ppm/300ppm)x100=1% is approximately 1%.

Approximately. But not exactly.

 

[Furcifer]

Even when the numbers are right there for you, you prefer to make them up to incorrectly assert a linear fit.

from the data linked at the Mauna Loa monitoring site:
(ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt)
2000 369.41
2001 371.07 0.45% change from 2000
2002 373.16 0.56% change from 2001
2003 375.81 0.71% change from 2002
2004 377.54 0.46% change from 2003
2005 379.78 0.59% change from 2004
2006 381.86 0.54% change from 2005
2007 383.73 0.49% change from 2006
2008 385.54 0.47% change from 2007
2009 387.35 0.47% change from 2008
2010 389.78 0.63% change from 2009

There is no 1% per annum, linear "best fit" to the data, even at this grossly truncated segment level of examination (and as a general RoT, the smaller the data sampling and the more averaged the numbers in that sampling, the easier it is to force a linear curve onto the data). At the scale of climate relevent time periods (3 X 20 = 60 years) there is a slight apparent geometric progression taking place, and if this is coupled to a multiple century (3 x100 = 300 years) data plotting, a logarithmic nature is more apparent in the data character.

So it's linear and 0.5%, that's even less alarming. Thanks.

 

[metzomagic]

I'm not on that site very often but the only comment I've seen in regards to the term was somebody that was Jewish that found it offensive.

The term itself is a strawman and confuses the issue. Very few people actually "deny" global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise. I don't know most of the other "generic" deniers, but from my understanding Holocaust deniers flat out deny the event ever happened. Unlike climate change that almost everyone that's been labelled a "denier" accepts.

As for the "A" I wouldn't worry too much about it's absence. Sometimes it's just easier to not write. You're thinking about it in the wrong terms, again for the most part people accept the "A". I agree though at times it's dropped from the discussion for strategic reasons.

ROTFL! FYI, most of the posters on WUWT:

1. Deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Deny that even if it is, that our pouring 30+ Gt of it into the atmosphere annually can have any significant effect on the ecosphere.

So your assertion of:

"Very few people actually "deny" global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise."

is completely without foundation. If that were the case, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in! Please, stop trying to weigh in on behalf of the AGW deniers if you don't even understand what they are denying. That is just pathetic.

ETA: sorry, I was talking from the an evidence-based standpoint there. A substantial portion of the WUWT crowd deny that the globe is warming in the first place. They claim it's all Urban Heat Island effect. In fact that is the Anthony Watts mantra. Check out www.surfacestations.org.

 

[macdoc]

some get it.....

Q: The group you are referring to is the American Energy Innovation Council with business leaders from GE, Xerox, Martin Marietta and more, right? Can you talk about some of the recommendations you made and the reception of those?

Gates: It's a fun group. We have a clear consensus about what should be done. I think in a normal fiscal environment, we probably would have been successful. The amount you have to tax energy in order to fund the R&D piece is pretty modest -- say one-half percent.

Read more: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/05/13/how-bill-gates-would-solve-climate-crisis#ixzz1MGj0KhsC

good read

concludes

You ended last year's TED talk with the statement: If I have one wish for the next 50 years, it would be energy at half the cost of today's energy with zero carbon emissions. Do you feel as strongly about that today?

Gates: Absolutely. If you look at the history of mankind -- why is it in the last 300 years that we've doubled life span, reduced childhood death by a factor of 10, raised literacy from under one percent to over 80 percent? Innovation is so core to how we've gotten as far as we've come. It's exciting that we have the potential to solve these problems

http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/05/13/how-bill-gates-would-solve-climate-crisis?page=0,1

The biggest boom every, Gates gets it, Doerr gets it, ....some few still got their heads buried.........and just love funding the oil sheikhs et al.
.

 

[Wangler]

Even when the numbers are right there for you, you prefer to make them up to incorrectly assert a linear fit.

from the data linked at the Mauna Loa monitoring site:
(ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt)
2000 369.41
2001 371.07 0.45% change from 2000
2002 373.16 0.56% change from 2001
2003 375.81 0.71% change from 2002
2004 377.54 0.46% change from 2003
2005 379.78 0.59% change from 2004
2006 381.86 0.54% change from 2005
2007 383.73 0.49% change from 2006
2008 385.54 0.47% change from 2007
2009 387.35 0.47% change from 2008
2010 389.78 0.63% change from 2009

There is no 1% per annum, linear "best fit" to the data, even at this grossly truncated segment level of examination (and as a general RoT, the smaller the data sampling and the more averaged the numbers in that sampling, the easier it is to force a linear curve onto the data). At the scale of climate relevent time periods (3 X 20 = 60 years) there is a slight apparent geometric progression taking place, and if this is coupled to a multiple century (3 x100 = 300 years) data plotting, a logarithmic nature is more apparent in the data character.

I think I understand that 3BP is stating that the rate of increase, as a fraction of the current yearly CO2 concentration, is constant at approximately 1%.

Your numbers seem to support this contention.

Now, the absolute amount of increase per year goes up, but I didn't think that was what 3BP was referring to.

 

[Furcifer]

ROTFL! FYI, most of the posters on WUWT:

1. Deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Deny that even if it is, that our pouring 30+ Gt of it into the atmosphere annually can have any significant effect on the ecosphere.

So your assertion of:

"Very few people actually "deny" global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise."

is completely without foundation. If that were the case, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in! Please, stop trying to weigh in on behalf of the AGW deniers if you don't even understand what they are denying. That is just pathetic.

ETA: sorry, I was talking from the an evidence-based standpoint there. A substantial portion of the WUWT crowd deny that the globe is warming in the first place. They claim it's all Urban Heat Island effect. In fact that is the Anthony Watts mantra. Check out www.surfacestations.org.

Like I said, I don't spend much time there. I know around here very few people do and they few times I've perused that site I didn't see it. If that's the case it's just sad.

I highly doubt it though. None of the polls we've seen posted in this forum have come close to suggesting people "deny" global warming.

Got one that does?

 

[macdoc]

Nuclear power plants don't but themselves

they BUY cheap, clean,relatively carbon neutral power and have for decades.....

 

[CapelDodger]

This part was telling:

'I asked Anthony Watts, the meteorologist who runs what may be the most popular climate-skeptic blog, Watts Up With That, what could lead him to accept climate science. A "starting point for the process," he said, wouldn't begin with more facts but instead with a public apology from the high profile scientists who have labeled him and his colleagues "deniers." '

So basically he’s saying he could never acknowledge his position was wrong as long as people don’t apologize for saying he’s wrong. W... T... F...

What we'll see with Watts, and almost all deniers, is ever-increasing petulance like this. Eventually most of them will just stop talking about it and move on to some new gummint conspiray to "take control of US business". The true AGW denial cult will have a long tail, like the Hollow Earthers and Millerites.

The major cult figures are of an age to go to their graves still denying, leaving a small group of younger acolytes to carry the torch. Then factions will emerge based on preferred Apostles (Watts, McIntyre, Spencer, Munchkin ...), there will be splits and schisms and venemous language, Judith Curry will attempt to arbitrate and get the Mary Magdalane treatment from all of them ...

Or something like that . I'm really enjoying the melt-down of the cult already, and it can only get more hysterical (in both senses).

 

[CapelDodger]

Odd that you'd say that considering it's much easier to predict how much CO2 might be emitted than to say what the average global temperature might be.

Of ourse it isn't. There coud be any sort of result from a combination of Peak Oil, trade dislocation, economic conditions, political and diplomatic decisions, technological change and I may have missed some. Temperature increases for any given emmission scenario are relatively simple to calculate because they're based on well-known laws of physics.

It's accurate enough that scientists use it as a model parameter to run simulations.

You can't possibly know it's accurate because it refers to the future.

You're just handwaving here.

You're trying to avoid the point I made, which is that climate model runs are made against a suite of scenarios of whih your 1% would simply be an example. Your claim that "they use it as a paremeter in many models" is, as so often, simply plucked out of the air and is also nonsense.

t's about 1% and it's been that way for a while so there's no reason to assume just yet that it will be any different.

It isn't 1% and there are many good reasons to assume it will change in the near- to medium-term. There's no good reason for assuming it won't be different given the state of the world today and the trajectory it's currently on. Emmissions could be dramatically higher because of tar-sands and coal-to-gasoline conversion (for example), or it may be much lower due to a deep global recession. It is unlikely to remain unchanged.

And they have to assume because measuring the actual amount of increase or decrease isn't an easy task.

It's downright impossible because the emmissions haven't happened yet. The models are projecting into the future, which is an unexplored country.

"Botulinum toxin is a medication and a neurotoxic protein produced by the bacterium Clostridium botulinum, and is held to be the most toxic substance known to mankind with an LD50 of roughly 0.005-0.05 µg/kg"

source

It's your claim that you put "harmless" in quotes for a reason that I'm questioning. What reason do we have to believe you?

What?

I said

You're surely not positing an entirely different, unidentified, natural source which has coincidentally manifested recently. That would be grasping at "unknown unknowns" beyond belief.

Which you're surely not. Just what you are doing is not yet clear in every detail, but we can perhaps approach it asymptotically.

 

[Trakar]

Even when the numbers are right there for you, you prefer to make them up to incorrectly assert a linear fit.

from the data linked at the Mauna Loa monitoring site:
(ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt)
2000 369.41
2001 371.07 0.45% change from 2000
2002 373.16 0.56% change from 2001
2003 375.81 0.71% change from 2002
2004 377.54 0.46% change from 2003
2005 379.78 0.59% change from 2004
2006 381.86 0.54% change from 2005
2007 383.73 0.49% change from 2006
2008 385.54 0.47% change from 2007
2009 387.35 0.47% change from 2008
2010 389.78 0.63% change from 2009

There is no 1% per annum, linear "best fit" to the data, even at this grossly truncated segment level of examination (and as a general RoT, the smaller the data sampling and the more averaged the numbers in that sampling, the easier it is to force a linear curve onto the data). At the scale of climate relevent time periods (3 X 20 = 60 years) there is a slight apparent geometric progression taking place, and if this is coupled to a multiple century (3 x100 = 300 years) data plotting, a logarithmic nature is more apparent in the data character.

I think I understand that 3BP is stating that the rate of increase, as a fraction of the current yearly CO2 concentration, is constant at approximately 1%.

Your numbers seem to support this contention.

Now, the absolute amount of increase per year goes up, but I didn't think that was what 3BP was referring to.

If one only looks at the last 10 years, the average rate of increase of CO2 has been just a hair over 1/2 of 1%/year. If, however, you plot the increases over a climatologically significant period of time (say the last 30 years), you can see that the rate of increase and the over all increase in volume of CO2. Given the fact that the over all percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, even a regular increase of a set fraction would be indicative of an increasing volume of CO2 (think of a balloon, in order to keep adding 1/2 of a percent of air to a balloon, I'd have to add increasingly more air to the balloon to keep adding a steady 1/2 percent to the volume of the balloon). When we look at the longer term it is easier to see that not only are there regular percentage increases in the accumulated CO2 ratios in our atmosphere, but that these increases are growing at an increasing rate. If we look at the first ten years of mauna loa's records we see

1959 315.98
1960 316.91 %change = 0.29%
1961 317.64 %change = 0.23%
1962 318.45 %change = 0.32%
1963 318.99 %change = 0.17%
1964 319.62 %change = 0.20%
1965 320.04 %change = 0.13%
1966 321.38 %change = 0.42%
1967 322.16 %change = 0.24%
1968 323.04 %change = 0.27%
1969 324.62 %change = 0.49%


This gives us a average increase during that first decade of record keeping of about 0.0027 or 0.27% roughly half of the current rates of increase!

When you have increasing rates of increase, you do not have a linear function of increase.

 

[mhaze]

Imagine a person taking exception to being publicly labeled a slanderous term designed to invoke disdain because of the obvious correlation to Nazi apologists

The key here being "publicly". It's one thing to call someone a "denier" or an
"alarmist" within a closed group that understand the context. It's another to do so publicly. Many people don't know what "denier" means as it applies to discussion on AGW and instead only know it as it applies to the Holocaust. Because of that it's very misleading and highly offensive especially among the Jewish community.

That's compounded by the obvious fact that most people being labeled "deniers" don't deny global warming or climate change. It's misleading in the way that most pejorative terms are.

And the Warmer Religion purposefully engineered the use of the word Denier, and applied it to those who dared blaspheme against their true faith. Starting with Noam Chompsky, as I recall in 2006.

You know, Chompsky? The propagandist?

 

[Furcifer]

Of ourse it isn't. There coud be any sort of result from a combination of Peak Oil, trade dislocation, economic conditions, political and diplomatic decisions, technological change and I may have missed some.

Are you kidding me? I can't tell if you're being serious or if this is in jest. Obviously all of those have to be calculated first and then the temperature change calculated. It's the first step, the second is finding the temperature change. It's inherently easier to do 1 step than 2.

Temperature increases for any given emmission scenario are relatively simple to calculate because they're based on well-known laws of physics.

They're not, the physics may be well known but it's extremely complex and uses some of the biggest super computers in the world. I could calculate the CO2 from emissions using a pad of paper and a TI-36. I'm not following your logic here at all.

You can't possibly know it's accurate because it refers to the future.

It's called trending and it's a perfectly valid scientific method.

It's been pointed out that it's not 1% though, it's closer to 0.5%. I'm curious why they would over estimate it by this much. It appears to be a very "worst case scenario".

You're trying to avoid the point I made, which is that climate model runs are made against a suite of scenarios of whih your 1% would simply be an example. Your claim that "they use it as a paremeter in many models" is, as so often, simply plucked out of the air and is also nonsense.

More denial. I've already cited 1, here's another :http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/tk0401.pdf and another : http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3638/MITJPSPGC_Rpt11.pdf?sequence=1 and another: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.143.8265%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=rTPPTdyKOom4twfI-oj2DQ&usg=AFQjCNHd2Tg6wuV6H-DvPjpbRGJshQGfDQ&sig2=Oe_cz8bgpLdwvxr20QH95g&cad=rja and another : http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEkQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjack.pixe.lth.se%2Fkfgu%2FKOO090_FKF075%2FArtiklar%2FP02.pdf&rct=j&q=climate%20model%20study%20impact%201%25%20increase%20in%20CO2%20per%20year&ei=rTPPTdyKOom4twfI-oj2DQ&usg=AFQjCNE7CqOUiTSdt4aZJSxPua98sJj6Pw&sig2=wHicR7nj9D_13xk61oYm9Q&cad=rja and another :http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3632/MITJPSPGC_Rpt17.pdf?sequence=1

You guys don't really seem to know much about climate models at all. It's almost as if all you do is read about the extreme predictions based on worst case scenarios at RealCrapClimate.com and link them here. So much for skepticism.

It isn't 1% and there are many good reasons to assume it will change in the near- to medium-term. There's no good reason for assuming it won't be different given the state of the world today and the trajectory it's currently on. Emmissions could be dramatically higher because of tar-sands and coal-to-gasoline conversion (for example), or it may be much lower due to a deep global recession. It is unlikely to remain unchanged.

No it's 0.5%. The models run 70-80 years and get a sensitivity of about +2.8C. If it stays at 0.5% how long is that? 200 years? That's a long, long time to fix this problem.

It's your claim that you put "harmless" in quotes for a reason that I'm questioning. What reason do we have to believe you?

I don't know what you're asking? I put it in quotes because CO2 is a harmless gas, but some people are alarmed by the harm it could cause indirectly.

Which you're surely not. Just what you are doing is not yet clear in every detail, but we can perhaps approach it asymptotically.

I still don't know what you're talking about. I've read this a few times now and it doesn't make sense. What's a "coincidentally manifested natural source" mean?

 

[Joey McGee]

This is the funniest thing I have read all day. The deniers are whining about being called deniers? Oh my god what would they prefer, "most holy Gods of skepticism"? So did Chomsky steal that from "evolution denier" which had been used for many years before that?

My Oxford dictionary...

c 1400 Apol. Loll. 99 And ȝet þey deny to men þe understonding of þe gospel‥þei wel bi deniers

So people have been using the word denier for centuries... one group is especially egregious with their denial and as a result they try and fight against the ******* word? Yeah, that's rich. The fail is deep here.

 

[lomiller]

I think I understand that 3BP is stating that the rate of increase, as a fraction of the current yearly CO2 concentration, is constant at approximately 1%.

This was clearly his original intent but he's since disavowed it to try and defend his claim that such an increase is linear. In any case this and all his previous iterations of his claim are useless because they don't go anywhere.

 

[Furcifer]

This is the funniest thing I have read all day. The deniers are whining about being called deniers? Oh my god what would they prefer, "most holy Gods of skepticism"? So did Chomsky steal that from "evolution denier" which had been used for many years before that?

My Oxford dictionary...



So people have been using the word denier for centuries... one group is especially egregious with their denial and as a result they try and fight against the ******* word? Yeah, that's rich. The fail is deep here.

That's your opinion. I think the Fail is trying desperately to justify using a term you know is offensive.
I think recently I related a story about using the term "jewed". I was young and never thought much about the origin of the word, it was just like "screwed". I happened to use it in front of someone that was Jewish and they took offense to it. Once I thought about it I saw how it could be offensive and never used it again.
I wasn't using it to offend anyone and didn't think it would. I suppose I could have justified using it and made up some crap about how it's a homage to Abraham's negotiating skills and not really a negative stereotype at all. I mean being able to bargain well is a good thing not a bad thing. I still don't really know why people get offended by it but who cares, it's just easier to improve my vocabulary and not use it.
But that's just me. I really don't know why he's taken offense to the term but I'm guessing this is why. Maybe it's just an excuse, who knows? Maybe the guy I was playing cards with wasn't offended and was just pissed we were beating him even though I was getting crappy cards

 

[Joey McGee]

That's your opinion. I think the Fail is trying desperately to justify using a term you know is offensive.

It's not an offensive word, the deniers have decided it is offensive to them and tried to classify it as an offensive word but it is a descriptive word and as such will continue to be used forever despite the hysterical pleading of it's targets.

If I say you are completely incorrect in your thesis that you have worked 3 years on, I have just called you stupid in a sense, or how did you screw up that bad? But we don't have hissy fits over that do we? "He called me wrong! wahhhh!" no. If I call you a denier, I am stating my opinion that you blatantly deny real evidence. "He said I deny real evidence! Wahhhh" jokes.

The two assessments are identical in nature and while it's possible to take offence (who wouldn't?) this kind of offence is unavoidable in rational conversation and trying to influence this dialog should be looked upon with disdain.

I think recently I related a story about using the term "jewed". I was young and never thought much about the origin of the word, it was just like "screwed". I happened to use it in front of someone that was Jewish and they took offense to it. Once I thought about it I saw how it could be offensive and never used it again.
I wasn't using it to offend anyone and didn't think it would. I suppose I could have justified using it and made up some crap about how it's a homage to Abraham's negotiating skills and not really a negative stereotype at all. I mean being able to bargain well is a good thing not a bad thing. I still don't really know why people get offended by it but who cares, it's just easier to improve my vocabulary and not use it.
But that's just me.

This made it deep into the lexicon but was always meant as racist, to be screwed over, there is no basis for any other meaning. Contrast that to denier which has had a specific meaning for several hundred years.

I really don't know why he's taken offense to the term but I'm guessing this is why. Maybe it's just an excuse, who knows? Maybe the guy I was playing cards with wasn't offended and was just pissed we were beating him even though I was getting crappy cards

Heh, probably a little of both. Actually I caught my mom using that word the other day and she had no idea that she even had said the word. Funny skit on this NSFW

As people we are desperate for respect and acknowledgement. He shouldn't be concerned with the name they called him. What he objectively should want is for his opponents to acknowledge that his skepticism was justified, that his dissent was productive. I haven't read Watts but I imagine that this kind of admission will never come.

 

[Furcifer]

It's not an offensive word, the deniers have decided it is offensive snip...

No word is offensive until a group decides they don't like it, then it becomes offensive. I have no idea why the "n" word is offensive, I don't believe their is even a root meaning for it. Jewed has the root word "jew" so at least you know it has something to do with a specific group.
I find the word "knife" offensive. What's the "k" doing there anyways? Why is it silent, is it trying to be sneaky? I don't like sneaks.

The two assessments are identical in nature and while it's possible to take offence (who wouldn't?) this kind of offence is unavoidable in rational conversation and trying to influence this dialog should be looked upon with disdain.

The use of a label like denier or alarmist is trying to influence the dialog actually. By labeling people we diminish their own opinions and ideas by generalizing them. It takes away their individuality and marginalizes them.

As people we are desperate for respect and acknowledgement. He shouldn't be concerned with the name they called him. What he objectively should want is for his opponents to acknowledge that his skepticism was justified, that his dissent was productive. I haven't read Watts but I imagine that this kind of admission will never come.

Again by using labels like denier or alarmist we remove any chance of recognizing an individual for their achievement. They aren't "generic" labels, they're inherently pejorative. "Commander", "Doctor", "Sir" "El Presidente", these are labels that recognize and respect.

It's all fine and dandy to say "I'm rubber, you're glue..." but people aren't rubber and glue, they're emotional beings. Dismissing them because you feel they're being irrational isn't going to get you anywhere because you'd end up dismissing them all.

 

[Joey McGee]

No word is offensive until a group decides they don't like it, then it becomes offensive.

Actually the largest group, all of us, decide what words are offensive. Certain groups often try and they have varying degrees of success. I'm miffed that saying the word "retarded" has become offensive for any human to say no matter what you're talking about. They probably want to ban it's scientific use too...

I have no idea why the "n" word is offensive, I don't believe their is even a root meaning for it.

Niger is the Latin word for the color black.

Jewed has the root word "jew" so at least you know it has something to do with a specific group.
I find the word "knife" offensive. What's the "k" doing there anyways? Why is it silent, is it trying to be sneaky? I don't like sneaks.
The use of a label like denier or alarmist is trying to influence the dialog actually.

All accurate words are trying to influence the debate, the people unfairly trying to influence the debate are the ones trying to cook up an offence to a word. Really people would try say it's trying to bring in the "holocaust denier" thing? That's completely wrong and unfounded and desperate.

We can't call them skeptics or unbelievers, and they aren't just wrong, they actually deny real evidence. What should we label them as instead?

By labeling people we diminish their own opinions and ideas by generalizing them. It takes away their individuality and marginalizes them.

It's not a label it's an accurate description of what we think their problem is. An evolution denier says "There is no evidence for evolution" There is no better description. If you say "There is no evidence for AGW" you are an AGW denier.

Again by using labels like denier or alarmist we remove any chance of recognizing an individual for their achievement. They aren't "generic" labels, they're inherently pejorative. "Commander", "Doctor", "Sir" "El Presidente", these are labels that recognize and respect.

Again it's an accurate description and if they want to be treated with respect they shouldn't deny the bloody evidence in the first place. The people who call them deniers are also risking their reputations if they turn out to be wrong, it's an even playing field but the losers cry foul just because they can. Everyone wants a civilized discussion, everyone wants to live up to that dream, but it's utopian, if I think you're wrong I think you're stupid in a sense, everyone just get over it and move on and do some work, whiners.

It's all fine and dandy to say "I'm rubber, you're glue..." but people aren't rubber and glue, they're emotional beings. Dismissing them because you feel they're being irrational isn't going to get you anywhere because you'd end up dismissing them all.

It's still possible to refer to them as AGW deniers but still review their books, engage them in debate and debunk their work. The term doesn't carry all of these other associations you want it to. This is what the deniers want because it would serve their main goal which is to get people to think of them as an oppressed minority which is hogwash.

 

[ThunderChunky]

I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to use the word, it's certainly fitting.

I'm saying that it gets confused with Holocaust "deniers" when used without the qualifier and can be offensive.

At least for someone in the public spotlight. I can understand not wanting to be labelled something that may be associated with something vile and having to explain yourself.

It's an unecessary label to begin with, and most likely not correctly used because it isn't defined. Someone here suggested it means you "deny" global warming. I don't "deny" global warming and people continue to use it even though they know it isn't correct.

I call people alarmists all the time and it's just in response to being called a denialist. It's a pejorative and doesn't really mean anything in particular. I use it to explain a typical mindset. If I called someone an alarmist IRL and they were offended by it I would apologize. It isn't associated with anything in particular and tends to be much more generic than "denier" so I doubt that it would ever happen. But if it did I would apologize. That's the danger of using labels and generalizations to try and categorize people.

There are many types of science deniers: AIDS deniers, evolution deniers, vaccine deniers, climate deniers, etc. I personally think the term should be reserved for people that deny basic facts or are make arguments that have long been refuted. There is no discussion to be had with such dishonest or wacky people...and when they promote such dishonest or wacky ideas in the public space, they should be publicly called out. Such as in the following article:

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v16/n3/full/nm0310-248a.html