"Denying" Climate Change
Climate change is a complicated issue. This sort of science is open to much politicking, from both sides. My position on this is very simple: Whilst I accept that climate change is almost certainly happening, I do not accept the hypothesis that humans have caused it - affected, exaggerated, accelerated, yes, but not caused. We have been “industrialised” for little over two centuries - to say that this has caused climate change seems to me to be absurd and frankly arrogant. If this planet was really that sensitive to such minor changes as Man has made, it would have imploded by now.
But that is not the point I want to make.
Instead, I want to point out to those who think that climate change is happening that their very language in referring to anyone who dares question their received wisdom as a “denier” doesn’t help them or anyone else. This post [along with this] at The Conscious Earth are prime examples of this enviro-fascism. I mean, referring to “deniers” like this:
“Nobody would spend a decade debating bed time with a 5 year old. It’s now long past due to end the current climate change “debate” and send deniers to bed, without their supper.”
is not exactly seeking any form of debate. As I posted in the comments of that post, to which I received little in the way of a considered reply:
I find the term “denier” related to climate change and global warming inflammatory and offensive. Using that sort of terminology does nothing but make things worse…
I’m not “denying” that climate change is happening. I find the use of the term and your very attitude towards anyone who even slightly disagrees with you quite disgusting. I’m just not convinced that mankind has CAUSED it. That is a big difference, and one which those of you who use the term “deniers” are ignoring, and thus driving people towards the other side of the debate. The more people label me a “denier” because I dare to question their received wisdom, the more I disregard them as idiots.
There is no doubt that this is true. Referring to someone who disagrees with you - even a little - as a “denier” is loaded language, and nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to smear any and all opposition of any sort as some form of neo-Nazi.
This is enviro-fascism. They are saying ‘either you agree with me completely or you are a “denier”.’ And that I find offensive. I don’t “deny”, I’m just not convinced.
This entry is filed under "Green" Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Instead, I want to point out to those who think that climate change is happening that their very language in referring to anyone who dares question their received wisdom as a “denier” doesn’t help them or anyone else.
No, this is entirely wrong. I am not descending to terms of abuse like enviro-fascist when I simply ask sceptics to read the literature before speaking.
Debate must be informed, otherwise it’s just pissing into the wind. Now I provided a multitude of links but it was clear that many were shooting off at the mouth having not bothered to read them. This is simply ill informed and has zilch to do with preventing debate.
I want debate but with people who know what they’re talking about and have the facts at their fingertips.
I have addressed every commenter at my site and included links in all but two cases [where they weren't required]. That’s debate.
I have found it pointless to argue with Jehovah’s Witnesses as well- unshaken belief is immune to rational discussion when they regard you as a heretic.
I suspect that much scepticism is down to a realisation that if it is true that Man is reponsible for irreversible climate change then it is a Lefty’s wet dream.
I’ll chime in with higham. I draw a very clear distinction in my post between 2 groups of people.
1. “those who are genuinely misinformed or under-informed about global warming” and,
2. those that knowingly perpetuate lies (deniers), or stubbornly refuse to consider new information
By steadfastdly refusing to read about the new information TD you are falling squarely into category 2.
Information about climate change, by the time it gets to the internet and dumbed down enough for people with little or no scientific knowledge to understand it is going to be heavily biased. Internet sites like the one you link to exist with a specific agenda and viewpoint. I am sure that there are other internet sites that have the same sort of “idiots guide” approach from the other side of the discussion.
The way you infer that ‘if you don’t agree with me completely, then you’re a DENIER’ is sickening. On most of it, I agree with you - I’m not saying that climate change is not happening, that humans have affected it, and that we should do what we can to limit of damage. I just don’t believe, using logic [you know, that thing that declares that 2+2=4, not 5] I cannot see how it is at all possible for human to be the sole cause of any climate change we are experiencing or will experience within my lifetime. It is inevitable that we have affected it, but not caused it.
And the thing that is worst about the way you act is that anyone who disagrees with you at all becomes a “denier” in your eyes because they don’t concur completely to your received wisdom. THAT is what annoys me most of all about people like you, the ‘if you don’t agree with me, you’re a DENIER!!1!’ tendency.
Instead of saying “you won’t read my [inevitably biased] website, so you’re a denier!!1!” accept that just because people don’t agree with what you declare as the cause doesn’t mean that they are either (a) denying, or (b) necessarily completely wrong.
There are plenty of people like Bjorn Lomborg, who accept the warming and the human cause but disagree about the severity and the putative solutions.
I note that even these people are denounced as deniers or stooges of big oil.