The use of the word deniers is an odd one
It's worryingly close to the phrase holocaust deniers, and I think underlines a fundamental issue that climate change sceptics have.

The idea of man made climate change has moved on from being a debatable scientific question to a fundamentalist belief, with all of the blind sensationalism that you would expect.

In the same way that it's hard to take fundamentalist religion seriously because it is so unmovable in it's stance, so entrenched in it's doctrine and so unwilling to look outside of it's own boundaries it is becoming hard to take climate change advocates seriously as they undermine their credibility with melodramatic rhetoric.

Whether man is responsible for climate change or not, I feel a reasonable and measured debate has been left behind, in favour of doom mongers, politicians and corporate shills.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:09, 3 replies, latest was 17 years ago)

No.
The deniers are not sceptics, since scepticism in its true sense implies systematic doubt in a search for evidence, combined with an openness to evidence.

The denialist movement is no sceptical, because it will not accept the evidence. To this extent, it does have a common trait with holocaust deniers, "birthers", and any number of other fringe movements.

The belief among the scientific community - and even the American petrochemical science association accepts it - in AGW is not doctrinaire; its simply the case that, given what we understand of physics, chemisty, and so on, the reality AGW is about as close to proven as you can get. There is no debate to be had on its reality at the moment, any more than there's a debate to be had concerning the number of legs that the average dog has.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:16, Reply)

the fundamental bit comes in with ordinary people though
regardless of the science and the scientists, it's the common people that are the ones with the unshakeable faith either way.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:19, Reply)

I've just worked out the number of legs an average dog has
1 legged dog has 16600000 google results
2 legged dog has 3030000 google results
3 legged dog has 14500000 google results
4 legged dog has 15000000 google results
5 legged dog has 11000000 google results
6 legged dog has 12100000 google results
7 legged dog has 9910000 google results
8 legged dog has 10600000 google results
9 legged dog has 6460000 google results
10 legged dog has 13900000 google results

So dogs on average have 5.349 legs.
FACT
(PsychoChomp, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:24, Reply)

I am going to use this methodolgy
for everything in my life from now on.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:25, Reply)

So
David Bowie is Shit - 15,700,000
David Bowie is Awesome - 15,100,000
David Bowie is alright - 835,000
David Bowie is good - 15,400,000

Fuck me, it seems I've been wrong all this time. I humbly apologise to Monty Boyce. I'm off to burn Scary Monsters now.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:27, Reply)

hahahaha
this is awesome

and newsletter worthy I'd say

edit:
althegeordie is gay - 1,150 results
althegeordie is straight - 105 results

better break the news to your fiancée
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:28, Reply)

Awwww that sucks
I was really looking forward to getting married.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:31, Reply)

And look at this
Vipros is a cunt - 451
Vipros is a god - 1,450
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:32, Reply)

the internet never lies

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:35, Reply)

Civil ceremonies are nearly the same.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:33, Reply)

I'm not from Islington
they won't let me have a civil ceremony with a woman.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:34, Reply)

Hahaha

( Noeli overtheshoulderboulderholderthingstraplatchboobs, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:58, Reply)

it's not science if you don't put FACT at the end.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:28, Reply)

*clicks*

( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:36, Reply)

When excited my dog has 4 1/2 legs...

To me there seem to be unsatisfactorily answered questions, and since it's politicisation AGW feels less like a scientific theory and more a govermental crowbar.

The use of renewable energy, less polluting cars, the clean up of industry can only be a good thing whether AGW is true or not, however the paradigm shift in our style of living neeeded to meet government set targets feels wrong and unecessarily economically damaging.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:25, Reply)

I don't see why it's damaging at all.
The Stern Report was clear that moving to renewables would be expensive, but expensive doesn't mean harmful: the money spent would provide jobs, technology, innovation; and it would, of course, save us from the oil shocks headed our way.

It would also be cheaper than the predicted cost of climate change - a cost which, since the Report, has been revised upwards.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:34, Reply)

I think you've summed it up quite nicely there

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:16, Reply)

I disagree
I think he's entirely wrong.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:24, Reply)

I'm trying to clarify what I'm saying above and below
not talking about the science, more the attitude of the public and the way things are reported in non-scientific media. in a huge sweeping generalisation.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:26, Reply)

No, it hasn't.
The newspapers just like to paint us as unreasonable and fundamentalist. I admit, the use of the word 'deniers' has unfortunate associations, but most of us don't actually look down on climate change sceptics quite that much.

We are open to debate and we would dearly love it if someone could provide irrefutable proof that actually we just forgot to carry that three and it's all going to be alright. Most of these studies don't actually say "don't worry, it's going to be alright after all," they just proffer a study or a simulation that's contrary to fifty-odd other studies, because they set up a certain parameter in a different way. Unfortunately, because it goes ever-so-slightly against the grain, innumerable idiotic journalists see it as sensational and decide that the best thing to do is blow it up into a huge, triumphant publication that says everyone else was wrong all along. They seem to like to ignore the fact that it's just one little paper floating in a huge sea of similar papers which all make slightly different predictions. We're not ignoring these papers; they just don't have that much impact.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:22, Reply)

I may have been mistaken
but I don't think he was talking about scientists, or at least, what he says is much more applicable to people who have a staunch belief for or against AGW, but have little understanding of the science behind it. The people cultivated by sensationalist media reporting.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:24, Reply)

Yes, sorry, you're right.
Reading his post back, he's not actually used the word "scientist." I've just been a bit tetchy since the papers started accusing all the climate scientists of being unreasonable and refusing to debate the matter. Sorry, almost got a bit knee-jerk there.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:26, Reply)

I'm not surprised that scientists are refusing to debate the matter
why would you want to discuss it with someone who doesn't understand and won't listen?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:28, Reply)

Well, there is that
Although again, I refute the idea that they're "refusing" to debate - after all, in order to have a proper debate, you have to have a convincing case from the sceptics. And we're still waiting for that one...
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:42, Reply)

sorry, wasn't saying they were
just saying that it was understandable if they did.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:44, Reply)

Oh, well that's fair enough, yes.

(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:48, Reply)

That's not a refutation.
It's a rejection. To refute something means to prove that it's mistaken, which you've not done.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:01, Reply)

Ah.
Ok, in that case I reject the idea.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:06, Reply)

My point really was

that sensationalism of any topic AGW, religion or politics on either side of an argument undermines that argument and at present it feels like there is a lot of AGW propogander that falls into this camp.

Similarly outright refusal to believe something is happening to the global climate also makes you look like a berk, as with most things a sensible and reasoned middle ground is where the truth and in this case our survival lies.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:29, Reply)

Well, yes, you have a good point there.
Again: blame the papers.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 11:49, Reply)

Reasoned middle ground is, frequently, a pile of crap.
Right (ahahah I put it on the left)------------------------------------Wrong

Anywhere in the middle is still wrong.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:28, Reply)