A "climate denier" is shorthand for "morons who refuse to acknowledge the scientific reality of man-made climate change either through blind ideological stupidity or because they are sucking oil company cock".

But I'll grant you that it really should have been "climate change denier". I'm sure at this point you will now decide that my one typo invalidates literally millions of man-hours of climate research.

You're right about one thing, we are getting desperate. Everyone should be, because we are fucking ourselves over.

If anyone is "desperate," it's clearly the climate change alarmists, because no one's really doing anything that has any real impact on the supposed warming.

So knock yourself out getting all riled up about it. Good luck with that...

(I am, however, rather amused with your cranky tantrums and tirades...Haha, what's a "climate denier" anyway?"There's no climate, ok?" "Yes there is, you denier!")

Bollocks.

He's not taken seriously by one guy who's a student and tv intern and one other meteorologist. It's hardly "by any meteorologist", but hey, 2 people is absolutely a representative sample for the climate denying brigade.

Most meteorologists agree with Bill Nye

Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
Yes 89%
No 4%
Don't Know 7%

How sure are you that global warming is happening?
[Asked if answer to Question 1 is “Yes”]
Extremely sure 46%
Very sure 37%
Somewhat sure 16%
Not at all sure 1

What else can they do?
When the conclusion is inescapable, the only option left for them is completely ignore the issue....and to try to force everyone else to ignore it as well.

I want to start a contract with all 'climate change deniers', the gist of which would be that once they, or the few groups they quote to support their position, change their position about climate change, 100% of their assets are forfeited to help solve or at least mitigate the problem. I'll sign the same contract, so if the 98+% of scientists change their position and tell us it's a fraud, they can have 100% of my assets to make up for the slight slowing of the economy caused by 'anti-climate change regulations'.
I'm 99.99999% certain I won't get any takers.

As a side note, I notice there isn't a thing where republicans are buying up ocean front property that's already below high tide level. If they really believed their own BS, the coast would be over 90% republican everywhere in the US, and Galveston would be 100% red (oh wait, it likely is already for other reasons, bad example!).

It's even worse than that, the deniers are actively trying to stop anyone in their reach from conducting climate science:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/gop-war-on-science-gets-worse

As funny as I expected it to be, it also depressed the hell out of me. Wouldn't it be great if Obama actually called out climate deniers like that?

I don't give a shit if a homeopath or an astrologer or a climate denier or any other nutjob you care to name disables comments on youtube. It's simply not a meaningful channel for debate. There are other, better channels.

There's no one claiming to represent everyone who uses the internet saying that online harassment is ok.

But those GG assholes claim to represent "gamers", and no, it's not even slightly about ethics in journalism. It is, in fact, the complete opposite. This is a group that called on Nintendo to withdraw support from reviewers who were critical of Bayonetta.

The fucking hypocrisy is mind blowing. Seriously, think about it. A group that is supposed to be anti-censorship and pro-consumer told one of the biggest names in the industry to boycott a publication because it criticized their product. It is to Nintendos credit that they ignored these assholes who can't understand the difference between critique and censorship.

There isn't some balanced 3rd party POV on GG. Those people are fucking troglodytes, and the sooner they're consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

And yes, of course, I'm ashamed to be part of society sometimes.

I'm not a WASP, but I am Irish and I'm deeply ashamed of some of the racist bullshit associated with my country. I was raised Catholic. Take a wild guess about how I feel about that.

The "gamers are dead" thing has been completely misinterpreted. Did you even read the source article? It's saying that the target market for games isn't "gamers", but just people. Stop marketing to a fictional teenage boy demographic.

And quite frankly, I'm considering buying a t-shirt that says SJW. How the fuck did advocating social justice become a pejorative?

I used to be a pretty strong "doubter", if not a denier. I made a gradual shift away from that, but one strong instance of shift was when Neil Degrasse Tyson presented it as a (relatively) simple physics problem in his new Cosmos series. Before we started burning fossil fuels, x% of the sun's energy was reflected back into space. Now, with a higher concentration of CO2, x is a smaller number. That energy has to go somewhere, and at least some of that is going to be heat energy.

Still, I don't think that anything on the level of "average individual citizen/household of an industrial country" is really where anything needs to happen. Yes, collectively, normal people in their daily lives contribute to Climate Change. But the vast majority of us, even as a collective single unit, contribute less than industrial / government / infrastructure sources.

Fossil fuels have been a great source of energy that has massively contributed to global advances in the past century. BUT, although we didn't know it in the beginning, they have this associated cost/downside. Fossil fuels also have a weakness in that they are not by any means inexhaustible, and costs rise as that becomes more and more obvious. In turn, that tends to favor the status quo in terms of the hierarchy of industrial nations versus developing or 3rd world countries -- we've already got the money and infrastructure in place to use fossil fuels, developing countries can't afford the costs.

All of this makes me think that 2 things need to happen:
A) Governments need to encourage the development of energy sources etc. that move us away from using fossil fuels. Tax breaks to Tesla Motors, tax incentives to buyers of solar cells for their homes, etc. etc.
B) If scientists/pundits/whoever really want people to stop using fossil fuels (or just cut down), they need to develop realistic alternatives. I'll bring up Tesla Motors again for deserving huge kudos in this area. Americans (and in general citizens of developed countries) have certain expectations about how a car should perform. Electric cars have traditionally been greatly inferior to a car burning fossil fuels in terms of living up to those expectations, but Tesla threw all that out the window and made a car that car people actually like to drive. It isn't just "vaguely functional if you really want to brag about how green you are", it is actually competitive with or superior to a gas-engine car for most users/consumers (some caveats for people who need to drive long distances in a single day).

We need to get more companies / inventors / whoever developing superior, functional alternatives to fossil fuel technologies. We need governments to encourage and enable those developments, NOT to cave to lobbyist pressure from big oil etc. and do the opposite. Prices will start high (like Tesla), but if you really are making a superior product, economy of scale will eventually kick in and normalize that out.

Outside of the consumer level, the same thing goes for actual power production. Even if we did nothing (which I would certainly not advocate), eventually scarcity and increased difficulty in obtaining fossil fuels (kinda sad that the past 2 decades of pointless wars 95% driven by oil haven't taught us this lesson yet, but there it is) will make the more "green" alternatives (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, whatever) more economically practical. That tipping point will be when we see the real change begin.

People doubt climate change because the noise of the people pushing agendas has drowned out the actual science. Even the major media, both 'defending' and 'attacking' climate change all get things entirely wrong and misrepresent the actual science. Lets be honest most people, particularly many of the people claiming to be well informed, really haven't looked at the actual science available and assessed it honestly.

99% of the world right now fits into two camps, the 'believers' defending the coming apocalypse that we've created and must adapt to yesterday, and the deniers who disagree.

The actual scientists observing that there is a warming trend that we are contributing to aren't listened to be EITHER side. When the IPCC posts projections for 2100, even the IPCC most optimistic view riles up the deniers and even the IPCC most gloomy view is dismissed by the 'believers'.

Don't hold out any hope that facts, reason and logic are gonna shift humanity anytime soon. Historically speaking it's pretty much not gonna happen,

The real problem is that even once thing become so obvious that climate change is real, and the predictions are real, they'll still deny it was humans had anything to do with the acceleration of climate change, or at least they'll deny it had as much as science proves it does. They'll just point to it being more signs of the end times, which is all the more reason to vote against fundies, as they are prone to letting stuff go, or trying to encourage things to happen that they see as end time predictions just because they think if all the signs are there that means the return of Jesus is soon, of course they discount that there is an appointed time which might still be 50,000 years from now and if we muck things up now, that's 50,000 years of end times in full force that could have been avoided. And I base this on personal experience with deniers who are already willing to pass it off as just signs of the end of times...

Another problem is that they think that scientist are saying 100% of all climate change is caused by human activity, or at least that's how the right wing media sells that is what is being said. They don't understand that what is being talked here is the acceleration from the norm. They just point to the Earth goes through warming/cooling periods all the time and ignore the acceleration, and if they do acknowledge it, they pass it off as debatable, because the far right doesn't understand science (I should know I used to be one). Once the changes become so drastic, they'll just point to God letting go, or causing it for it being the end times, and point to the Bible versus that show such things will happen.

She's not a skeptic by any reasonable definition. She's a denier. There's a difference, which you yourself cover. I believe we do everyone a disservice by considering arguments such as she makes to be valid in any way. Let's call a spade a fucking shovel, and avoid some of the (often intentional) confusion.

Climate denier found it first and is currently using it as pool table.

@Taint, The skeptics don't "deny" that the climate changes. They are skeptical of the reasons why it changes, the claims of consistent warming, and the claims about the catastrophic effect of whatever is caused by human activity. Also, I don't think I need to go into the debunking of that 97% claim (science is not a function of votes or consensus, but of evidence). In any event, most of the "debate" about this topic is a waste of time considering the "believers" are mostly not climate scientists and that no one is actually doing very much about it in their own lives.

So, straw man opinions about so-called "deniers" is a pathetic attempt to substitute character "analysis" for actual scientific evidence of man-made global warming of catastrophic proportions. Evidence of which has yet to be provided.

So the real reason many people don't "believe" has to do with not being presented with actual evidence and instead being given false claims (97%) about "consensus" (which is irrelevant to science), and claims of "settled" science (also meaningless in real science), postulated mostly by writers, politicians, and activists with no scientific credentials.

No one really argues with the idea that the climate changes. But, rather, what caused the change, to what degree, and what the effects will be... Well, let's just say for now that all (not a few but all) climate models have been proven wrong.
So no, there are no climate change "deniers," but plenty of people, and many scientists, who don't believe certain claims about specific aspects, even when believers keep repeating the "consensus" canard.

I honestly don't think believers actually believe their own claims of impending greenhouse gas climate catastrophe. If they did, they would all drive hybrids and go vegetarian. Also, most "green" tech companies wouldn't fail (like most of them do). Why do the climate change believers drive their SUVs and fly to their holiday vacation without regard to the impending climate doom? They are polluting the air, are they not? By their own theories, they also warm up the climate.

Contrary to consensus claims, nearly every aspect of climate change is being debated by the scientific community. Can you name a specific aspect of it that is not under debate (without going into some general "climate change" "consensus" canard)? Such claims are too broad to mean anything of any relevance. What specific aspect? What about it?

You indicate that this is a one sided issue. I say you are right because liberal left control nearly all forms of media and education have latched onto this propaganda. Just as for gay rights and abortion. The left all push their ill logical ways .

The Weather Channel’s founder, John Coleman strongly disagree with your crazy thought.

skip the first 2 min its just anti Gore rants.



I gather you think that Abortion is not murder even when there is 100 % proof that the "tissue" is human is shape and form.

You and your ilk are deniers through you own ignorance.