Comments on: "Denying" Climate Change

By: TDK

TDK — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:07:00 +0000

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.

By: ThunderDragon

ThunderDragon — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:57:00 +0000

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.

By: Odiyya

Odiyya — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:38:00 +0000

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.

By: Shades

Shades — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:25:00 +0000

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.

By: Daimyo Higham-Baka-Ohta

Daimyo Higham-Baka-Ohta — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:15:00 +0000

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.