I'm making this thread as a response to SpaceGuy's thread on why deniers of global warming shloud have their feelings hurt on the issue by calling them what they are - deniers.
This is SpaceGuy's post complete and totaly unedited or in any way changed;
This explanation is from a poster at www.climateaudit.org and should be required reading for anyone who bandies about the term when addressing those you do not agree with regarding the existence or non existence of anthropogenic global warming.
"Denial" is an ordinary English word meaning to assert the untruth of something. Recently, however, it has acquired a further polemical sense. To "deny" in this new sense is to repudiate some commonly professed doctrine. Denial is the secular form of blasphemy; deniers are scorned, ridiculed and sometimes prosecuted.
Where does this new usage come from? There is an old sense of "deny," akin to "disown," which no doubt lies in the background. (A traitor denies his country; Peter denied Christ.) But the more immediate source is Freud. Denial in the Freudian sense is the refusal to accept a painful or humiliating truth. Sufferers are said to be in a "state of denial" or simply "in denial." This last phrase entered general use in the early 1990s and launched "denial" on its modern career. "Holocaust denial" was the first political application, followed closely by "Aids denial," "global warming denial" and a host of others. An abstract noun, "denialism," has recently been coined. It is perhaps no accident that denial’s counterpart, affirmation, has meanwhile acquired laudatory overtones. We "affirm" relationships, achievements, values. Ours is a relentlessly positive culture.
An accusation of "denial" is serious, suggesting either deliberate dishonesty or self-deception. The thing being denied is, by implication, so obviously true that the denier must be driven by perversity, malice or wilful blindness. Few issues warrant such confidence. The Holocaust is perhaps one, though even here there is room for debate over the manner of its execution and the number of its victims. A charge of denial short-circuits this debate by stigmatising as dishonest any deviation from a preordained conclusion. It is a form of the argument ad hominem: the aim is not so much to refute your opponent as to discredit his motives. The extension of the "denier" tag to group after group is a development that should alarm all liberal-minded people. One of the great achievements of the Enlightenment—the liberation of historical and scientific enquiry from dogma—is quietly being reversed.
The use of the word "denier" to belittle those who reject the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming represents a dark direction of discourse between people, who no matter their passion for their subject, should remain respectful of their fellow citizen's rights and opinions.
The text in bold says it all.
And, this is my response, most likely deleted,
Sorry, but climate change deniers are exactly in the same camp as all the other deniers. The science has been in since the 1990's and there has been not one single credible study since then that has gone contrary to the consesus that the climate is changing and the driver of that change is primarily human activity.
In 1945 Eisenhower ordered that every American soldier under his command in the European theater was to go to a concentration/death camp, VERY specifically to create a vast army of witnesses to Nazi beastiality so that when the deniers crawled out from the dark corners as he knew they would, at least for awhile there would be living witnesses to what really happened. The scientific community today bears same witness to humanity's essential suicide by heat, and the silencers and deniers are again hard at work.
So delete away, as you will no doubt do, since the only thing you apparently cannot handle is the unvarnished truth of scientific reality.
The attacks and the fallacies of logic and of scientific method come from the denial camp, usually thru cherry picking data, such as Michael Crichten's cherry picking of a small set of average water levels in the Pacific, or the silly arguments about well the winter was really cold so that means the planet isn't warming, or taking a PRELIMINARY STUDY on the average temperature of the oceans to claim there is "missing heat" in the climate system and therefore the WHOLE of global warming research is COMPLETELY FALSE - in fact, for those of us who really paid attention, one hole in the measurement of oceanic temperatures is the lack of mid level measurements and deep sea measurements, which the above mentioned study noted and which was being remedied. Preliminary reports suggest the "missing" heat is gathering in those layers (and yes, the oceans have layers - watch Hunting for Red October sometime, or ask any submariner)
My point is the thing you accuse scientists of is exactly what deniers do - use false logic attacks and random anecdotes to disparage a body of knowledge consisting of tens of millions of pieces of tested and retested data and the tens of thousands of scientists who have done the work, often using company shills who work for the fossil fuel industry, or crackpots with little or no expertise in the fields involved (much like racists used William Schockley to "prove" the IQ inferiority of blacks), or worst of all twist the meaning of those who DO support the science of global warming and its fundemental cause by cherry picking or deliberately misrepresenting their data (see ocean temperatures above)
So again, silence me and delete this, but I've decide your will NOT be the only voice, so I will start a thread, using this post AND yours, in full, with all credits for a REAL discussion, and not this empty sounding baord you have set up. Because, unlike you, while I may think and even call you a ----, I will never SILENCE you and what I know to be your nonsensical remarks. Dangerous I know, but here I stand and can do no other - And I suggest you find the quote I paraphased, you might learn someting.