[jl6]

I find the term denialist really unhelpful. It’s a polarizing thought-terminating cliche.

Outright denial that climate change is happening is now rare. It’s hard to argue with hard data so only the looniest attempt it. We have a fair few people arguing that climate change is happening but that it’s natural and the human impact is negligible. These people are mostly ignorant and could potentially be described as in denial. But then we have a lot of people who agree that climate change is real, agree that humans are a major causative factor, but disagree on what to do about it. I don’t think these people deserve to be called denialists even if I disagree with them. It shuts down dissenting views, and I’m not ready to declare that I definitely know what the answer to climate change is. I think it should remain possible to express different views. I worry that someone will eventually decide things have got bad enough that we’re going to try some drastic risky geoengineering, and objectors will be denounced as denialists because that’s what we do to heterodox thought.

[dwaltrip]

There’s also the whole range from “it might be kinda bad but it’s not a top priority” to “it’s gonna be fine, someone will figure it out”, and so on.

There are many ways to downplay or avoid taking action.

[yareal]

I've encountered people who deny it's happening, deny it's manmade, deny it will have impact, deny it will have a negative impact, and deny we should prioritize any changes in behavior. All on HN. I don't care which of the above you are, you are a denialist if you fit into any of them.

[psychlops]

I find it hard to believe there are "plenty" as well. I was hoping for a link as I'm curious where these people congregate.

Science allows many different views, each with differing levels of proof. "Denialist" would be a term reserved for the intolerant who believe in one truth.