Vigilans wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
I don't like the term "denier". It deliberately draws connotation with holocaust deniers. Global Warming Skeptics, Evolution Skeptics, Round Earth Skeptics, not deniers...
I differentiate between GW denialists and GW skeptics on the basis of the tactics they employ or their actual level of knowledge. Everyone who is supporting the notion should still be skeptical, likewise those opposed. Thus I lump alarmists and denialists into the same category of 'profiteering'
I have personally worked with some of the data and it is very obvious that there is a warming trend (from many many different sources I might add, not just from thermometers at airports). Claims the trend can be explained by moved thermometers, by the urban heat island effect, claims that the
majority of scientists thought the climate was cooling in the 70's, etc, etc... all that stuff that gets repeated ad-nauseum I would lump firmly into the denialism camp. Worst are the claims that scientists are deliberately lying and conspiring. It is irrational to keep repeating baloney that has been shown wrong over and over again and the people who keep repeating the garbage are uncannily similar to creationists in their modus operandi. There's skepticism and then there's just plain idiocy.