Why is there a classification of "warmists" and "denialists" in Global Warming?

Question

Definitive statements really going beyond the purpose of science. Scientific experimentation is designed to test hypotheses within a range of statistically verifiable certainty. Conseqently, definitive statements do not really support the outcomes of scientific findings as they are all subject to degrees of certainty. Why then does the global warming section of Yahoo Questions have a major grouping that classifies as definitive "warmists" or "denialists"?

This definitive grouping approach enables scientific questioning and discussion of global temperature to go nowhere because it starts from a definitive basis and both sides simply antagonise each other in attempts to discredit and deflect attention from pertinent issues. As a result it is a game of politics and not science. What choice would you like this section to be, scientific or political?

What is wrong with classifications of global warming skeptics and global warming followers? Changing the classification enables more accurate descriptions of where one scientist sits in relation to debates about global temperature fluctuation. The follow on effect hopefully brings in dicussion about uncertainty to enable more useful, meaningful, scientific discussion on the issue.

Answer 1

Welcome to the GW section of Answers where sadly there are a number of people who have little interest in the science of climate change or discussing the subject in a rational or intelligent manner.



For some it’s more about taking sides than anything else, those who hold different opinions are viewed as the opposition and must be defeated. All too often this degenerates into name-calling and ad-hominem attacks. If you stick around you’ll also notice that there’s no end of lies and manipulation that’s invoked in order to ‘win’.



In the correct context, then it is rational and justifiable to apply labels such as denier and skeptic, warmist and alarmist etc.



The denier simply maintains that global warming isn’t happening and couldn’t happen – by definition they are a denier. A skeptic would adopt the approach of questioning whether it’s happening or if it could happen. A lot of deniers think they’re skeptics, they’re not.



Conversely there are the alarmists who take global warming to it’s extreme and illogical conclusion, maintaining that the world will end and we’re all going to die horrible deaths. Again, by definition the term ‘alarmist’ is etymologically correct.



You seem like a rational and intelligent person so you’ll have no trouble identifying the antagonists and you’ll quickly notice that the characteristics you highlighted are far more endemic from one particular side of the debate. You may also notice that the chief antagonists are often the first to attempt to transfer their behavioural characteristics onto others; it’s a trend that has been identified many times in the past.



Your observation that the climate change debate has become a game of politics and not science is, all too often, quite correct, which can be something of a shame for those who wish to discuss the subject on a scientific level.



As someone who has participated on and off in this section of Answers for the last seven year, I’ve noticed that the level of questions and answers has consistently declined and it’s less and less about the science and more about politics and winning. Hopefully that will change, somehow I doubt it.

Answer 2

A sceptic is someone who knows something on a subject. There are numerous people in the world, and this category who do not understand even the most fundamental basics of the science involved in climate science yet they argue against those who do since accepting the reality that humans have contributed to global warming is against their religious beliefs or they are influenced by the political biases of their sources of information. This is also true for some people who accept the science without understanding it, since the vast majority of laypersons only know what they learn through the media on this issue.



Anyway, while I am a sceptic I am regarded as a warmist because I accept the reality that human GHG emissions have contributed to the current warming trend. However there are a couple of denialists here (Moe and Ottowa Mike) who actually hold the same position on the science as myself, in that we agree that emissions have contributed to the trend but accept that we do not know how much future warming will occur as a result of future emissions. Where we differ is how we regard the sources of information, I am open-minded and when I do not understand scientific material (such as predictive models of climate change) I accept the expert's opinions until I see a reason not to. Given that the proposed evidence of conspiracy is utterly unconvincing I am unable to disregard any evidence "the establishment" produces without considering its merits. Those guys on the other hand take denialist bloggers seriously and Moe can't take a breath without saying climate science is a religion. So there is a very large difference between us despite similar positions re the science.



So the classification of sceptic correctly describes more of the "warmists" than the denialists. But denialism includes a wide cohort from those who are basically sceptical but are inclined to accept material from dodgy sources (including those funded by fossil fuel proponents and non-scientists parroting denialist rhetoric), all the way through to creationists who believe the earth is only 6000 years old therefore no problem. Denialist is a thoroughly appropriate term.

Answer 3

You say you are a skeptic, time will tell, when you have been here a while you will see why there is a device, I invite you to read through some of the resolved questions. These generally referred to to as deniers offer nothing but a confused set of theories/conspiracies that range from blaming Al Gore to claiming scientists are involved in a global conspiracy etc etc. In the more theory end of their try's you have fiction like the Sun is the cause, when there is quite solid evidence that it is certainly not the Sun.

Another is it's volcanoes, when again there is strong evidence that mans emissions of Co2 are 100x the amount of volcanoes. There are repeated chants from deniers that things like the hockeystick are "discredited and proved wrong"

As a claimed skeptic, I invite you to look at the links deniers use, blogs, YouTube etc. The look at the links those like myself, Trevor, Pegminer and quite a few others use NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, USGS etc. Deniers try to dismiss these as "appeals to authority" this is how absurd deniers are, do you really wonder why we have little time for their rubbish.

I've worked in science for 25 years and am quite familiar with the concept of skepticism, my job is in a group that studies climate and I am also interested in and follow archeology, Viking and Roman history, Dinosaurs and ancient climate. A knowledge of these has also come in handy for showing up denier BS, I am open to any theory but like any science it needs supporting evidence AGW does that and despite repeated requests deniers are completely unable to supply any such supportable argument, they insistent on sticking to rubbish like "scientists are liars"

Given that they keep resurrecting old theory's like some mentioned above, even though they are long (actually) discredited like the Sun or Volcanoes, I'm sorry but people who do that have proved they are indeed 'deniers'

I invite you to try for yourself, one of the others here asked a recent question (it's probably in the closed questions section) for deniers to show some science links to support their arguments, none of them could provide one science link. I have found the same thing ask them for specifics or real links and you either get no answer or you get a stream of insults or blocked but there simply is no answer.

Try it yourself and see what you get.

Answer 4

True skeptics may indeed be quite common, but they are not the ones making noise. A skeptic, which you may well be responds to a new idea, hypothesis or "theory" with the words, "Prove it." On YA, the noisy minority, quickly believe nonsense, such as the canard about global warming stopping 16 years ago and yet, when a scientist like James Hansen produces evidence, he/she is accused of being biased, a liar and/or being part of some wild conspiracy, with no evidence at all, or something as flimsy as what looks like a video of a graph taped to a seesaw.



Look at Pindar's response. He accuses "warmers" of insults. If he is above that, let him say something nice about James Hansen, Michael Mann or the IPCC. In response to my own challenge, I believe that skeptic Roy Spencer is probably a nice guy.

Answer 5

No one is denying that global warming (and cooling) is taking place. The +problem+ is that there bad decisions being made with information from the hysteria which is being created by the alarmists.

International Socialists like Gore are creating a false hysteria in order to scare the masses into giving up freedom and to submit to more government control, more “international” government control. Wake up, America! He who controls energy controls the world.

As Margaret Thatcher put it: global warming is proving to be “a marvelous excuse for international socialism.”

Global warming is indeed real and has been documented with ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years.

What is NOT real is the quackery that humans caused (or can even affect) global warming.

The scare tactics being perpetrated upon us are only a money/power grab scheme by bottom-feeder politicians accompanied by their so-easily-led sheeple who take their prattle, even their movies, as hard science..

To find that my statement above is true, follow the money. See just who it is who will profit from the carbon offset, carbon tax, & etc.



Here is truth about global warming:



Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.

The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.

This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.

Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is

becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).

As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).

When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.



It's been happening for millions of years.



The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.

As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming (AKA "climate change")

Humans did not cause it

Humans cannot stop it



Global warming is indeed real and has been documented with ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years. What is NOT real is the quackery that humans caused (or can even affect) global warming.

The scare tactics being perpetrated upon us are only a money/power grab scheme by bottom-feeder politicians accompanied by their so-easily-led sheeple who take their prattle, even their movies, as hard science.

To find that my statement above is true, follow the money. See just who it is who will profit from the carbon offset and carbon tax,

Answer 6

global warming skeptics are rare . Skepticism is not the same as denialism . From Wiki , which has got a good overview (and it is the same with climate change or evolution or Holocaust or AIDS or old earth or germ theory or tobacco toxicity etc etc denialism) :



(Denialism) is a process that operates by employing one or more of the following five tactics in order to maintain the appearance of legitimate controversy:

Conspiracy theories — Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in "a conspiracy to suppress the truth".

Cherry picking — Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research.

False experts — Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.

Moving the goalpost — Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence.

Other logical fallacies — Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism





"Jungle Jim - I am a skeptic and certainly consider true spektics are plentiful." Thats fine - would you like to give an answer to my question : https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20130103225227AAx8HU1



What would a preponderance of evidence for AGW/climate change look like?

Many people , for many reasons , dont think AGW/climate change is real.



(i) What would you consider evidence to "prove" AGW/climate change is real?



(ii) Would there still be time to do anything about it?

Answer 7

<>



But isn't every scientist per definition a skeptic?



The whole problem with the phrase "global warming skeptic" is that it implies that the other side isn't skeptic, which is bull. Every single scientist, no matter from which field, has to be skeptic all the time if he or she follows the scientific method with integrity. Every single step in the procedures which make up the scientific method is designed to question the hypothesis proposed and rule out errors, flaws, bias. etc.



Yet time and time again we see the 'scientific method' being completely ignored by those who wrongfully label themselves as 'climate skeptics'. As Jungle Jim points out, the violations are multiple (and often not limited to just one): confusing opinion articles with peer-reviewed papers, cherry-picking, using long (scientifically) debunked arguments, false experts, the extensive use of papers which among themselves contradict each other, etc. The list is almost endless.



True skeptics are skeptic 24/7 yet self-labeled climate skeptics are selectively skeptic: they never question their own sources. And thus we are regularly confronted with hilarious situations where 'skeptics' instantly believe what a British Lord with no scientific background whatsoever tells them about climate science whereas decades of research and hundreds of published scientific papers of real climate scientists are rejected, to name just one hilarious example.



That is not scientific skepticism, that is bias pure and simple. It is the rejection of science just because on does not like the implications (either true or imagined) for ones personal life, ones personal believes (religious, political, etc.), personal finances, etc., etc. True skeptics base their judgments on just the scientific data, even in the case that this carries negative (imagined or real) implications for them personally and/or professionally.



A true skeptic is Richard A Muller who, skeptical of the US temperature data, performed his own research and published his own paper. When confronted with the scientific data of his own research (which confirmed the data of earlier research which he previously questioned) he inevitably had to change his position on the issue, and he did. That is Science, that is how it works. His religion, his political affiliation, the implications of the acceptance of his research's conclusions or any other bias were absent as they should be. Yet it is primarily the latter which self-labeled skeptics are incapable of. Their bias shows and is primarily political.



It is not surprise really that the real scientific skeptics, the ones who are climate scientists and actually perform research and publish peer reviewed papers in respectable scientific journals are just a handful, globally. And even these skeptics do not agree on what they are skeptic about, they individually question specific parts of the whole Scientific Theory, not the theory as a whole. And thus all which biased skeptics are left with is opinion pieces, false experts, cherry-picking, the regurgitation of long debunked myths and false claims, conspiracy theories, questioning the scientific integrity, endless FOIA request procedures, etc. etc.

Answer 8

>>What is wrong with classifications of global warming skeptics and global warming followers?<<



So, your solution is to call Deniers 'scientists' and to call scientists 'believers' - and therein lies the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of AGW (science) Deniers.

Answer 9

Warmists believe that the earth is warming due to man's intervention and the increase of CO2 among other things.



The 'warmists' call true scientists denialists because they do not go along with that theory.



He who controls the vocabulary wins the argument, is the thought of the warmist side of the issue. So they call true scientists denialists which, to them, is a derogatory term for skeptic.



Quote by John Dewey: “Scepticism: the mark and even the pose of the educated mind.”



Quote by Gerrit van der Lingen, scientist: “Being a scientist means being a skeptic.”

Answer 10

You lack a fundamental understanding of science. It does not depend on whether people "follow" it, "believe it," pretend to be "skeptical" of it, are brainwashed by outdated fossil fuel company propaganda lies about it, or are too stupid to learn it, or too lazy to even try.



U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12877

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”



http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200602/backpage.cfm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature

Answer 11

Well said it is ridiculous and has made this section just a mud slinging and insults section. And the biggest offenders are the believers, they in fact started the ball rolling by associating non believers with the Jewish holocaust in an attempt to distract from the lack of any real science in their camp (fiddled/adjusted data doesn't count). They now seem to have developed 2 distinctions; sceptics and deniers ??? one supposes that a sceptic has potential to be brought into agreement and a denier hasn't. Which in turn makes one want to make categories for them, I personally think they fall into groups such as , the mis educated, the indoctrinated and the fanatic.

One thing I do find annoying is when you try to post unbiased or open questions, they never actually answer the question , they just insult and babble like 4 year olds.

I also have Dook blocked because tbh I just can't see the point of him, he never offers anything useful , he just mindlessly insults. I do also have gringo blocked for going off topic although it was painfully obvious he would never offer any sensible comment when he agreed with Tim Flannery's statement that sea levels would soon be lapping over the roofs of 8 story building.



So yes this section is now just an insults forum, thanks to people who just want to promote an agenda, not discuss things rationally and be unscientific.

Answer 12

Global Warming is a scam perpetuated by Al Gore as a method of self-enrichment.