Skip to main content

View Diary: Don't Call Them "Climate Skeptics" -- They're Climate Deniers, Period (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's one way to spot intentional deniers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, bluegrass50

    Intentional deniers being the ones who are clearly, deliberately lying to discredit climate change: a common tell is that they won't tend to advocate one single opposing view, but will wander between all possible opposing views as it suits them.

    On that theme, a comment I made on this site two years ago:

    Here's one thing I have noticed: (6+ / 0-)

    If a scientist has a legitimately held point of view at odds with the general consensus regarding the effects of human activities on climate change, you'd expect them to hold a particular viewpoint - say, one of the following (which is by no means intended to be an exhaustive list of all possibilities)

     * Significant climate change is not happening

     * We can't adequetely determine whether it is happening

     * It's happening, but we can't adequately determine what (if any) proportion is attributable to human activity

     * It's happening, but for natural reasons with very little (if any) impact from human activity (and there are numerous reasons, some incompatible with each other, used to explain natural causes for recent climate trends)

     * It's happening, and caused by human activity, but that is a good thing: there will be more benefits than negative consequences

    However, the pattern I've seen is that scientists who get involved with these climate change denial industry sites will not hold to any one of these views. They will tout some or all of them, despite the obvious self-contradictions. I know of times when one of the names in this diary (the guy from Uni of Auckland) has turned up at environmental hearings on behalf of NIMBY groups to give "expert" evidence opposing wind farms, and used just about all of the viewpoints listed above in the same day - heck, sometimes in the same breath.

    That, for me, is a predominant reason to doubt their motive. Not because they take a scientific position at odds with a majority of researchers in their field, but because they take an anti-science stance switching casually between any of the particular contrary viewpoints, depending on the point they want to make at any time.

    by retrograde on Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 08:03:01 AM NZST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site