Re:Six charts help to explain 2024's freakish temperatures
by jemmyw on Saturday May 18, 2024 @05:01PM
(#40402075)
> if a person believes that yes, it's likely that humans are having some effect on climate, but that we aren't sure exactly what it is and how harmful it will be over a period of time - are they a "denier"?
Yes 100% they are a denier. This was a position that was valid in the 80s. It's also exactly the bs talking point spread by those who profit from us not moving away from fossil fuels. Confuse and delay as much as possible and discredit those pesky scientists with their models that can't decide if it'll be terrible or catastrophic.
Re:Six charts help to explain 2024's freakish temperatures
by claytongulick on Monday May 20, 2024 @10:43PM
(#40423481)
Ah. So if they aren't with you they're against you. Nuance and moderation need not show up, all those "pesky" scientists with different opinions should take their science back to the 80s?
Got it. Why bother considering other opinions? It's obvious what the Truth is.
There's got to be some pitchforks and torches around here somewhere...
I don't think that's a very good word.
It stratifies people into weird binary groups, while ignoring the reality that people have nuanced opinions, and many of those are quite reasonable.
It's a subtle form of "you're with us or against us", and disparages people who don't see things exactly the same way you do.
It's also used to move goal posts. I.e. if a person believes that yes, it's likely that humans are having some effect on climate, but that we aren't sure exactly what it is and how harmful it will be over a period of time - are they a "denier"?
It has its roots in holocaust denialism, and tries to paint folks skeptical of a single climate viewpoint with that same brush.
It doesn't further the discussion and encourages tribalism.
Inflammatory words like that are a barrier to quality discussion.