Was looking for a definition this morning.

You might be a denialist if you believe any of these three:

• Believe that human generated CO2 is less important than that generated by the sum of bushfires and volcanoes
• Believe that global warming is due primarily to variations in the Sun’s output, or to the Earth’s nutation/precession
• Believe that future increases in cloud cover will almost completely eliminate the warming from greenhouse gases

mollwollfumble said:

Was looking for a definition this morning.

You might be a denialist if you believe any of these three:

• Believe that human generated CO2 is less important than that generated by the sum of bushfires and volcanoes
• Believe that global warming is due primarily to variations in the Sun’s output, or to the Earth’s nutation/precession
• Believe that future increases in cloud cover will almost completely eliminate the warming from greenhouse gases

Only the true denialist denies their own denial.

I wouldn’t use the term “denialist” (other than in a circular self-referential definitiom), it gives them too much wiggle room to say they are not denialists. I prefer the term Pseudo-Sceptical Climate Change Doubter.

I define a PSCCD as anyone who claims that we can be sufficiently confident that human sourced GHG emissions will not have significant adverse effects that we do not need to reduce them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Was looking for a definition this morning.

You might be a denialist if you believe any of these three:

• Believe that human generated CO2 is less important than that generated by the sum of bushfires and volcanoes
• Believe that global warming is due primarily to variations in the Sun’s output, or to the Earth’s nutation/precession
• Believe that future increases in cloud cover will almost completely eliminate the warming from greenhouse gases

Only the true denialist denies their own denial.

I wouldn’t use the term “denialist” (other than in a circular self-referential definitiom), it gives them too much wiggle room to say they are not denialists. I prefer the term Pseudo-Sceptical Climate Change Doubter.

I define a PSCCD as anyone who claims that we can be sufficiently confident that human sourced GHG emissions will not have significant adverse effects that we do not need to reduce them.

It doesn’t seem to get mentioned alongside global warming that our emissions have other detrimental effects besides warming the planet, health related problems, general deaths related to pollution and so on. You could deny global warming but what about the others.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Only the true denialist denies their own denial.

I wouldn’t use the term “denialist” (other than in a circular self-referential definitiom), it gives them too much wiggle room to say they are not denialists. I prefer the term Pseudo-Sceptical Climate Change Doubter.

I define a PSCCD as anyone who claims that we can be sufficiently confident that human sourced GHG emissions will not have significant adverse effects that we do not need to reduce them.

Then you’d define me as half PSCCD then. For starters, I claim that GHC emissions do have significant negative effects, but they also have significant positive effects, such as increased forest growth, greater biodiversity due to better forest health, more rain, larger whale populations, and blizzards become fewer and less deadly.

On the opposite hand, i also hold the view that change is inevitable. Some changes are bad and some are good. Global cooling would be deadlier than global warming. So what we want is not no global warming, it’s slow global warming.

Cymek said:

It doesn’t seem to get mentioned alongside global warming that our emissions have other detrimental effects besides warming the planet, health related problems, general deaths related to pollution and so on. You could deny global warming but what about the others.

In a word “scrubbers”. There isn’t any air pollution in Australia any more. The sulphur dioxide is gone, the washed clothes covered in soot is gone, the VOCs are gone, the oxides of nitrogen are nearly extinct, the stench from the food processing plants (eg. Davis Gelatine) is gone, the dead fish in Sydney Harbour, Lake Illawarra and Melbourne Docklands are gone, the mercury pollution in Melbourne rivers is gone. I used to live next to the Wollongong steelworks so I know what air pollution used to be like. Even the stench from Melbourne tips has all but vanished in the past five years.

The health implications of what pollution is left in Australia are laughably nonexistent these days. Pollution can still adversely affect quality of life, enjoyment of life, but not health. I’ve heard on the TV that even China has adequate pollution controls these days, i’m not sure i totally believe that.

mollwollfumble said:

Was looking for a definition this morning.

You might be a denialist if you believe any of these three:

• Believe that human generated CO2 is less important than that generated by the sum of bushfires and volcanoes
• Believe that global warming is due primarily to variations in the Sun’s output, or to the Earth’s nutation/precession
• Believe that future increases in cloud cover will almost completely eliminate the warming from greenhouse gases

There was one possibility i didn’t want to include because I don’t think that even one person on Earth actually believes it. But it would make a good fiction story.

The readout from every type of sensor drifts with time. What if what we interpret as increasing anthropogenic CO2 is just sensor drift from sensors that aren’t recalibrated often enough?

As i say, i don’t think anyone on Earth would actually believe that, but it would make a good science fiction story, and define another class of denialist.

I’m starting to apply the word “antidenialismist” to those who are quick to accuse others of being denialists.

>>Then you’d define me as half PSCCD then. For starters, I claim that GHC emissions do have significant negative effects, but they also have significant positive effects, such as increased forest growth, greater biodiversity due to better forest health, more rain, larger whale populations, and blizzards become fewer and less deadly.

On the opposite hand, i also hold the view that change is inevitable. Some changes are bad and some are good. Global cooling would be deadlier than global warming. So what we want is not no global warming, it’s slow global warming.<<

Your initial claim that additional CO2 is good for forests is simply not correct and will have numerous detrimental affects on the world’s forests, and so all your following assertions are also wrong. I posted the following thread here only last week, plus there are also many other scientific studies awaiting your perusal.

Forests that live fast and die young, may help speed up climate change

Bang goes the deniers excuse that more co2 acts as a fertilizer that will benefit the world.

>>As human activity continually pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the Earth is doing its damnedest to stash it all away, in the oceans and forests. But new research led by the University of Cambridge has found that forests may not be as useful a carbon sink as we thought. The team found that a warming climate makes trees grow faster and die younger, releasing their captured carbon back into the air sooner.

One of the most common arguments against the dangers of climate change is that more CO2 in the air is good for plants, which capture the gas and store it in their cells. That’s true to an extent – young trees have been found to grow faster as temperatures warm up and there’s more carbon dioxide in the air. It’s been thought that greening the Earth with more trees could help offset some of the increases in CO2 emissions, but the new study shows that this might not work out as well as we’d have hoped.<<

https://newatlas.com/forest-carbon-sinks-less-effective/59707/

denialist, as above, is pejorative, but it need not be, though who am I to deny respectable people respectable swear words.

humans deny all sorts, all the time, that it’s necessary and necessary to deny the denial is the grand Lie, or simply said the Lie, it gets a capital.

even God’s in denial, and he put the entire thing together, got it started.

transition said:

denialist, as above, is pejorative, but it need not be, though who am I to deny respectable people respectable swear words.

humans deny all sorts, all the time, that it’s necessary and necessary to deny the denial is the grand Lie, or simply said the Lie, it gets a capital.

even God’s in denial, and he put the entire thing together, got it started.

I think a denialist is someone who not only disregards the facts, but actively argues against them for their own reasons.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

denialist, as above, is pejorative, but it need not be, though who am I to deny respectable people respectable swear words.

humans deny all sorts, all the time, that it’s necessary and necessary to deny the denial is the grand Lie, or simply said the Lie, it gets a capital.

even God’s in denial, and he put the entire thing together, got it started.

I think a denialist is someone who not only disregards the facts, but actively argues against them for their own reasons.

dunno, you perhaps think reality’s a reasoned business.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

denialist, as above, is pejorative, but it need not be, though who am I to deny respectable people respectable swear words.

humans deny all sorts, all the time, that it’s necessary and necessary to deny the denial is the grand Lie, or simply said the Lie, it gets a capital.

even God’s in denial, and he put the entire thing together, got it started.

I think a denialist is someone who not only disregards the facts, but actively argues against them for their own reasons.

dunno, you perhaps think reality’s a reasoned business.

The question was “Define denialist” not reality.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

I think a denialist is someone who not only disregards the facts, but actively argues against them for their own reasons.

dunno, you perhaps think reality’s a reasoned business.

The question was “Define denialist” not reality.

how buoyed are you of the opportunity for clarification

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

dunno, you perhaps think reality’s a reasoned business.

The question was “Define denialist” not reality.

how buoyed are you of the opportunity for clarification

I have always had problems understanding your posts, the above is no exception.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

The question was “Define denialist” not reality.

how buoyed are you of the opportunity for clarification

I have always had problems understanding your posts, the above is no exception.

i’m exceptional that way

my point, well, where I was going, was that denial is more common than many people would perhaps realize, or accept, that it’s necessary.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

denialist, as above, is pejorative, but it need not be, though who am I to deny respectable people respectable swear words.

humans deny all sorts, all the time, that it’s necessary and necessary to deny the denial is the grand Lie, or simply said the Lie, it gets a capital.

even God’s in denial, and he put the entire thing together, got it started.

I think a denialist is someone who not only disregards the facts, but actively argues against them for their own reasons.

dunno, you perhaps think reality’s a reasoned business.

We’re talking engineering here, not philosophy.

If we think that on the balance of probability the costs associated with climate change are likely to exceed the costs of avoiding (or reducing) them
OR
If we think that there is even a small chance that climate change resulting from GHG emissions will cause a significant increase in major disastrous environmental events,
OR
If we think that there is even a tiny chance of wold-wide disasters such as flooding of all low lying areas or many heavily populated areas becoming uninhabitable,

then we really need to be taking real action (and spending real money) to avoid (or reduce) these things.

And if there are people who don’t think that we should be doing that, or that other people should be doing it, or we should only do things that don’t cost anything,

then I think it’s quite reasonable to call those people “denialists”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

I think a denialist is someone who not only disregards the facts, but actively argues against them for their own reasons.

dunno, you perhaps think reality’s a reasoned business.

We’re talking engineering here, not philosophy.

If we think that on the balance of probability the costs associated with climate change are likely to exceed the costs of avoiding (or reducing) them
OR
If we think that there is even a small chance that climate change resulting from GHG emissions will cause a significant increase in major disastrous environmental events,
OR
If we think that there is even a tiny chance of wold-wide disasters such as flooding of all low lying areas or many heavily populated areas becoming uninhabitable,

then we really need to be taking real action (and spending real money) to avoid (or reduce) these things.

And if there are people who don’t think that we should be doing that, or that other people should be doing it, or we should only do things that don’t cost anything,

then I think it’s quite reasonable to call those people “denialists”.

bit incontinent with the royal inclusive there.

humans are essentially denialists, can’t even acknowledge when there are too many of their own species.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

dunno, you perhaps think reality’s a reasoned business.

We’re talking engineering here, not philosophy.

If we think that on the balance of probability the costs associated with climate change are likely to exceed the costs of avoiding (or reducing) them
OR
If we think that there is even a small chance that climate change resulting from GHG emissions will cause a significant increase in major disastrous environmental events,
OR
If we think that there is even a tiny chance of wold-wide disasters such as flooding of all low lying areas or many heavily populated areas becoming uninhabitable,

then we really need to be taking real action (and spending real money) to avoid (or reduce) these things.

And if there are people who don’t think that we should be doing that, or that other people should be doing it, or we should only do things that don’t cost anything,

then I think it’s quite reasonable to call those people “denialists”.

bit incontinent with the royal inclusive there.

Just substitute whatever term you choose.

Writing “you and I and everyone else who agrees with the stated argument” every time I would normally use “we” would get a little tedious.

transition said:

humans are essentially denialists, can’t even acknowledge when there are too many of their own species.

Which is why we should be doing what we can to clarify and explain why we think the way we do.

Shouldn’t we.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

dunno, you perhaps think reality’s a reasoned business.

We’re talking engineering here, not philosophy.

If we think that on the balance of probability the costs associated with climate change are likely to exceed the costs of avoiding (or reducing) them
OR
If we think that there is even a small chance that climate change resulting from GHG emissions will cause a significant increase in major disastrous environmental events,
OR
If we think that there is even a tiny chance of wold-wide disasters such as flooding of all low lying areas or many heavily populated areas becoming uninhabitable,

then we really need to be taking real action (and spending real money) to avoid (or reduce) these things.

And if there are people who don’t think that we should be doing that, or that other people should be doing it, or we should only do things that don’t cost anything,

then I think it’s quite reasonable to call those people “denialists”.

bit incontinent with the royal inclusive there.

humans are essentially denialists, can’t even acknowledge when there are too many of their own species.

I have noticed your rather narrow understanding of the word “we” before, but the term “humans” is much the same by referring to us generally.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

bit incontinent with the royal inclusive there.

Just substitute whatever term you choose.

Writing “you and I and everyone else who agrees with the stated argument” every time I would normally use “we” would get a little tedious.

transition said:

humans are essentially denialists, can’t even acknowledge when there are too many of their own species.

Which is why we should be doing what we can to clarify and explain why we think the way we do.

Shouldn’t we.

I don’t have much fantasy about thought convergence, nothing I could hide in a word.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

We’re talking engineering here, not philosophy.

If we think that on the balance of probability the costs associated with climate change are likely to exceed the costs of avoiding (or reducing) them
OR
If we think that there is even a small chance that climate change resulting from GHG emissions will cause a significant increase in major disastrous environmental events,
OR
If we think that there is even a tiny chance of wold-wide disasters such as flooding of all low lying areas or many heavily populated areas becoming uninhabitable,

then we really need to be taking real action (and spending real money) to avoid (or reduce) these things.

And if there are people who don’t think that we should be doing that, or that other people should be doing it, or we should only do things that don’t cost anything,

then I think it’s quite reasonable to call those people “denialists”.

bit incontinent with the royal inclusive there.

humans are essentially denialists, can’t even acknowledge when there are too many of their own species.

I have noticed your rather narrow understanding of the word “we” before, but the term “humans” is much the same by referring to us generally.

forgive me, I momentarily forgot you’d studied it, got the we genius.

I guess it’s the modern egalitarian thing isn’t it, that incontinent inclusivity.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

Just substitute whatever term you choose.

Writing “you and I and everyone else who agrees with the stated argument” every time I would normally use “we” would get a little tedious.

transition said:

humans are essentially denialists, can’t even acknowledge when there are too many of their own species.

Which is why we should be doing what we can to clarify and explain why we think the way we do.

Shouldn’t we.

I don’t have much fantasy about thought convergence, nothing I could hide in a word.

What does that have to do with it?

I have not said anything about thought convergence.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

bit incontinent with the royal inclusive there.

humans are essentially denialists, can’t even acknowledge when there are too many of their own species.

I have noticed your rather narrow understanding of the word “we” before, but the term “humans” is much the same by referring to us generally.

forgive me, I momentarily forgot you’d studied it, got the we genius.

I guess it’s the modern egalitarian thing isn’t it, that incontinent inclusivity.

Move along people! Nothing to see here!

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

bit incontinent with the royal inclusive there.

humans are essentially denialists, can’t even acknowledge when there are too many of their own species.

I have noticed your rather narrow understanding of the word “we” before, but the term “humans” is much the same by referring to us generally.

forgive me, I momentarily forgot you’d studied it, got the we genius.

I guess it’s the modern egalitarian thing isn’t it, that incontinent inclusivity.

Actually I think the modern egalitarian thing is picking on a perfectly ordinary word and attaching your own weird connotations to it, then acting all superior whenever anyone uses the chosen word.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Writing “you and I and everyone else who agrees with the stated argument” every time I would normally use “we” would get a little tedious.

You, me, them, everybody, everybody…

>Actually I think the modern egalitarian thing is picking on a perfectly ordinary word and attaching your own weird connotations to it, then acting all superior whenever anyone uses the chosen word.

you should be spanked for that intolerable insolence.

.

transition said:

>Actually I think the modern egalitarian thing is picking on a perfectly ordinary word and attaching your own weird connotations to it, then acting all superior whenever anyone uses the chosen word.

you should be spanked for that intolerable insolence.

.

That’s more like it :)