I do find Peters J's comment quite funny

"Would you like to be called an alarmist, alarmunist, loser or moron? "

Were has he been, all those terms are used towards us, all the time, several I believe he regularly uses himself.

While there seems to be lots of pointless denier questions about the use of 'denier' I don't seem to recall any going the other way about the multitude of names deniers direct at us.

With perhaps the exception of "one of the Pauls" it is deniers themselves that continue to try and link the word to the Holocaust and Pindar is one of the long term triers at that and frankly he is wasting his time, the word is now in the common vernacular, for someone who denies climate change, it isn't going away. It works not because of any reference to something that happened 70 years ago but because the actions of those today match the psychological condition of 'denial' so well. I am not really worried about the name calling as described by Peter J, if deniers like to think it makes them look like adults, 'alarmist' is fine and I take that as a counter to denier (if they want) but things like "loser or moron" as just the babble of a 12 year old or someone with a poor education who has to resort to that sort of language because they have no real answer.

To be fair the few here who do use that sort language seem to usually get thumbs down from both sides.

that is not stupidity, it truly is a failure with the aid of those scientists who declare that international warming is actual to chat their findings. EDIT: there is different uncertainty in this field of world warming. case in point examine the international cooling in the 1970's, human beings have been advised the earth grow to be getting less warm and now no longer long after in the 2000's all and sundry is being advised there is international warming. P.s. Jim z do a sprint prognosis the international cooling grow to be led to with the aid of a upward thrust in sulphate aerosols which mirror gentle and incoming warmth from the solar. The sulphate aerosols have been particularly sourced from the business boost after the 2nd international conflict and volcanic eruptions.

"Liars" is a better term for most of them. I struggle to imagine the mental gymnastics they go through to interpret the data to fit their preconceived beliefs, or why they get so vocal about a fringe position on an issue when they have no formal training in that issue.

I have no formal training in climate science, but am trained in science, and I just accept that 97%+ of the best climate scientists are not in on some grand conspiracy. Every explanation put forth by deniers is parallel to some desperate argument made by fringe creationist groups. They hold power only because they are backed by a large political body that values economic policy over scientific reality. It is a tiresome and embarrassing game. Future historians will take these cranks and blowhards and ink them out of the picture like they did those who fought against civil rights.

I personally could care less if people object to being called 'deniers.' If they don't want to be accused of being in denial, then get educated enough to be called skeptical and focus on the issue of climate change rather than the politics and personalities. Amazing how PC people get when it is their ox being gored, I wonder how many of the folks who are suddenly so sensitive about what they're being called are out there on the front lines of human rights and equality, demanding that minorities and women be treated with the respect they deserve.

The line between cynicism and denial isn't fine. I hold true to the belief that global warming is happening and I think that everyone must make a change in order to prevent environmental disaster. That being said, I am perfectly aware that some people may not share my views. They either do this because:

a) They have actual concrete ideas and facts to back up said ideas.

b) They deny it because they don't want to make changes in their lifestyle.

c) They were told to.

I find that the first reason is rare, but it is the only one that I respect and am willing to listen to. I am not a particularly stubborn person, if someone gives me that facts and the figures (as the scientific community has done) to disprove my beliefs, I will reconsider my position in this debate. I have yet to meet a person to do so.

The term "denier" had a specific political objective behind its use.

I understand that for many people it has just become a habit so I tend not to take it too personally.

What I don't understand is that the other day somebody referred to the respondents as "deniers" when the question solicited opinions of economic analyses by government agencies, versus people such as the Heartland Institute. The term was complete bizarre in the context of the question. I guess the word denier for them was indeed synonymous with "rational thinker" since the poster was clearly pretty gullible regarding economics and the impact of assumptions on economic analyses.

Anyway...as is increasingly evident in the GW Section, this is a political forum and not a scientific forum in any event. I look for science and all I usually see is BS!

Since there is not a really god word to call "warmers", I might just begin to use shortcuts as well such as Commie or Pinko in rsponse to most "science driven" political posters...but that would just lower me to the same level as the GW zealots!

I call them "skeptics" -- which is a more neutral term

Generally I try to describe people that I might disagree with by terms that they either call themselves, or at least by a term that are unlikely to object to.

It is simple test book physics that if we add CO2 to the atmosphere, CO2 levels will increase and the earth as a whole will warm. It is easy to do the back of the envelope calculation to make a rough estimate of the increase in temperature.

While I have a strong tendency to believe that those who deny that global warming could not be happening are uneducated (and qualitatively different from those who don't believe the change in global temperature is significant enough to worry about). I am not going to call them "deniers." I don't believe it adds anything to the conversation. It is nothing more than an insult. It may sound great to the converted, but it is not going to win new converts.

Call them skeptics, not deniers. And try to educate, not browbeat them. Teach them the basic science without being shrill and citing every recent paper. Peace.

*********Addendum*********

No one here knows much about either argumentation or education.

You don't call someone a "denier" because that assumes the righteousness of your underlying argument. It is a logical shortcut because it allows you to skip proving your own case. In legal terms, this is called, "assuming facts not in evidence" and is objectionable.

It is also unpersuasive to those who are undecided because, again, you have failed to prove your underlying argument. And further, it is an insult to those who believe that your argument is wrong.

Of course, the preferred labeling of skeptics as "rational thinkers" is equally flawed. It is self-absorbed. It also 'assumes facts not in evidence' -- they have shown neither that they are a rational thinker in general, or in the particular area of global warming. Without their showing why they are rational thinkers on the issue global warming (which requires a scientific explanation for their position), they persuade no one other than their own ilk.

It is far better to label them as what they are, skeptics of global warming and then to provide them with a quick analysis as to why an increase in CO2 levels will cause a rise in temperature.

Call a spade a spade. Like a child acting out, deniers are just happy to be able to talk with people that are better educated than themselves. Denial is their ticket. Better to be called a denier than shunned altogether. I find it ironic that deniers are constantly critical of those who volunteer their time as social workers for the willfully ignorant. Without social workers like Dana, deniers would be shunned altogether.

I have yet to hear a reasonable suggestion from them of an alternative to "denier." They are not skeptics--they do not pay attention to real evidence and will believe anything that supports their denial. I also thought the most descriptive term for them was "liars," but I doubt that they would appreciate that either.

dumdum said "I would call them "rational thinkers" too. Or "deception-challenged" because they have a harder time being deceived."

Great suggestions dumdum, except that it would be hard to find a group people that were less rational or more prone to being deceived.

Personally my philosophy is to call a spade a spade. If the spade doesn't like being called a spade, maybe I'll sugar coat it, if there's a good reason. But as 'Just this guy' said, I don't see any good reason not to call somebody who denies facts a 'denier'.

I also take offense when deniers like CO2 expeller and Pindar tell me that I use the term 'denier' to invoke comparisons to Holocaust deniers. Don't presume to tell me what my motivations are when I (and all other AGW realists) have repeatedly explained that Holocaust denial has nothing whatsoever to do with AGW denial.

I think Gwen provides a good example - I 'deny' that a deity exists, so if you want, you can call me a 'god denier' (though I'm not sure that rejecting the notion that a fictional deity exists can accurately be characterized as denial). Often I'll try to be specific and use the full term 'AGW denier', but as we're in the Global Warming section (as Gwen also astutely points out), if we simply use the term 'denier', it should really be abundantly clear that we're referring to your denial of AGW and/or associated facts.

I don't mind using other accurate descriptive terms in place of 'denier', but I don't think deniers would appreciate them. For example, ignoramus, pathological liar, selfish jerk, simpleton, deluded, sucker, brainwashed, etc. I think the term 'delayer' is appropriate, since an AGW denier's main motivation is to delay carbon regulation. But denier is the more accurate term in my opinion.

*edit* since deniers are not skeptical of anything, I'm not going to call them 'skeptics'. A skeptic has a critical, but open mind. Scientists are skeptics. Deniers are not.