Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Deniers" is a politically oriented term that alarmists constantly use in an effort to be manipulative, and to stifle discussion and the expression of dissenting views on this topic.
The term “deniers” is what people who have denied the holocaust are commonly referred to – as in “holocaust deniers”. By using this term, the AGW alarmists are collectively trying to associate people who have doubts and concerns about this alarmist movement with Adolph Hitler and his murderous campaign against the Jews.
So these are the tactics that the left has devolved to here.
You've posted this exact comment on this forum in the past.
Are you a robot scanning these forums with a word filter, or do you have a file open so you can cut and paste comments whenever you think they might fit?
You've posted this exact comment on this forum in the past.
Are you a robot scanning these forums with a word filter, or do you have a file open so you can cut and paste comments whenever you think they might fit?
You have used the term "denier" in the past. This answer that I have given will be appropriate as many times as you people continue to try to insult, to manipulate and to stifle the opinions of others with the use of this term.
You have used the term "denier" in the past. This answer that I have given will be appropriate as many times as you people continue to try to insult, to manipulate and to stifle the opinions of others with the use of this term.
I highly doubt that I could ever stifle or manipulate anyone on this board.
They're far too set in their ways.
Believe it or not, there is nothing tyrannical about someone speaking their mind... even if you don't agree with what they have to say. You should really drop the persecution complex and all of the rhetoric that goes with it-- if not for the sake of your own dignity, then because it adds nothing to the discussion.
"Deniers" is a politically oriented term that alarmists constantly use in an effort to be manipulative, and to stifle discussion and the expression of dissenting views on this topic.
The term “deniers” is what people who have denied the holocaust are commonly referred to – as in “holocaust deniers”. By using this term, the AGW alarmists are collectively trying to associate people who have doubts and concerns about this alarmist movement with Adolph Hitler and his murderous campaign against the Jews.
So these are the tactics that the left has devolved to here.
Don't forget those who deny that we landed on the moon, those who deny that the Theory of Evolution is a valid theory, and those who deny that the earth is billions of years old. To be honest, I don't see much of any real difference between the "climate skeptics" and the various sorts of deniers I've listed. Nevertheless, I almost never use the word 'denier' in my posts because I agree that name-calling is not conducive to a productive conversation.
What about the word "alarmist"? The implication, of course, is something like the "Chicken Little" scenario. If we are going to cease name-calling, it might be good to replace "alarmists" with climatologists, since the vast majority of climatologists (and most other scientists, in general), believe that the concerns about AGW are valid (mostly because scientists of all sorts are generally more persuaded by peer-reviewed science literature than by accusations made on internet blogs). So I propose that the default terms should be: climatologists v. climate skeptics.
[BTW: I changed my mind and put "climatologists" rather than "scientists" after initially posting, but you caught my post before the change. It is true that a few respected scientists support the skeptics' position (which I why I changed my initial post). I will be curious to see if you think "climatologist" is appropriate. For any given claim in any branch of science, you can almost always find a few fringe scientists who are fighting for a different view. We should not ignore these people; they are generally intelligent folks who could be right. Nevertheless, when the vast majority of experts in a field agree on something, it is most probably (tho not necessarily) because the evidence is stronger for that position.]
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 04-29-2015 at 10:26 AM..
This isn't a thread about business profits, brand image or the ethics of exploiting cheap foreign labor markets. The denier conspiracy theorists were claiming that Al Gore got rich off of green tech. He didn't. The fact that shareholders depend on Exxon to make profits is another motive to fund denial and lies about AGW.
I wasn't the one who brought up Exxon's profits.
Al Gore has gotten really rich from a very environmentally unfriendly medium, Apple & Google. But even before that he was getting around in private jets (bad carbon footprint) doing speeches at $175k and he grossed over $50 million on his movie, millions on his books and million upon millions on his investments dependent on regulations he lobbied for.
Also don't forget those who deny that we landed on the moon, those who deny that the Theory of Evolution is a valid theory, and those who deny that the earth is billions of years old. To be honest, I don't see much of any real difference between the climate deniers and the other sorts of deniers. Nevertheless, I almost never use the word 'denier' in my posts because I agree that name-calling is not conducive to a productive conversation.
What about the word "alarmist"? The implication, of course, is something like the "Chicken Little" scenario. If we are going to cease name-calling, it might be good to replace "alarmists" with scientists, since the vast majority of climatologists, and most other scientists, in general, believe that the concerns about AGW are valid (mostly because scientists are generally more persuaded by peer-reviewed science literature than by accusations made on internet blogs). So I propose that the default terms should be: scientists v. climate skeptics.
There are scientists on both sides of this ongoing debate, as much as the promoters of the AGW alarmism hypothesis would have us believe there is no debate and that only their perspective is valid or relevant, so you proposed terms will not work.
Personally, I think term alarmist is not unfair, as the AGW movement is sounding the alarm about their concerns that human emissions of CO2 are quickly leading us towards a serious worldwide disaster scenario.
Skeptics is correct though. I call myself a skeptic, so that term works for both of us.
Al Gore has gotten really rich from a very environmentally unfriendly medium, Apple & Google. But even before that he was getting around in private jets (bad carbon footprint) doing speeches at $175k and he grossed over $50 million on his movie, millions on his books and million upon millions on his investments dependent on regulations he lobbied for.
Exxon's profits are relevant because it shows that they have an interest in spreading disinformation about climate change and emissions.
How Al Gore became rich is relevant to the argument that he made a lot of money off of AGW. Most of his money was not made because of AGW.
Al Gore's hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether there's a massive conspiracy to convince everyone AGW is occurring and drive up the value of green tech stock.
Al Gore's personal beliefs, career, net worth and actions have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the planet is warming up, whether this is a good or bad thing, whether CO2 is a harmless gas or not, etc.
How Al Gore became rich is relevant to the argument that he made a lot of money off of AGW. Most of his money was not made because of AGW. Al Gore's hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether there's a massive conspiracy to convince everyone AGW is occurring and drive up the value of green tech stock.
Which just proves you didn't read the links because you don't want to hear it.....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
