[robxorb]

Well I'll be proudly labelled a "_____ denier" denier.

This pejorative term does nothing for anyone making any argument. It weakens your position because you're attempting to rely on emotions and psychology to make your case instead of... well, making your case!

It predictably has the reverse effect of your intention. Those who disbelieve you strengthen in their resolve because now not only do they disagree with you on a factual basis, but they also believe themselves to have been unfairly characterised in a pejorative way for their position. Dumb move, you had one obstacle, now you're made yourself have two.

If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?

To me it's primitive and ineffective behaviour, and I lose respect for those who resort to it.

[tapoxi]

Religions are a matter of faith, climate change has overwhelming scientific evidence.

If you don't call those people deniers, then you're signaling to third parties it's some sort of unanswered question.

[mysterydip]

The unanswered question in some peoples' minds is the cause, not the effect. Like if you called people "forest fire deniers" for questioning whether it was arson or not.

[defrost]

The cause of increasing mean tempretures is well known, it's due to the increase in the insulating properties of the atmosphere, primarily (at the moment) from increased CO2 (along with water vapor, methane, other smaller changes).

We know the makeup of the atmosphere has changed from having "libraries" of atmospheric samples.

The source of increased CO2 is also known, we humans through industrial activity have mined many many billions of tonnes of fossil fuels (coal, oil) and released an excess of that gas into the atmosphere.

This is a change that is distinctly over and above natural variations in atmospheric makeup.

[consteval]

Yeah but that parts not up for debate either, and is settled science.

[acdha]

> If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?

We could ask both of them to scientifically prove their faith and we’ll go with the successful one?

That’s facetious, of course, but it illustrates why this isn’t a valid comparison: religious faith is by definition dealing with things which cannot be measured scientifically while human-caused climate change has been the scientific consensus for half a century and has been rigorously tested using a wide variety of independent lines of evidence. Saying someone is denying that is valid because it’s a testable claim which can be rationally examined and independently confirmed, whereas a personal religious statement cannot because the successful religions in the modern era have evolved not to make claims which can be evaluated scientifically.

[robxorb]

Why don't we call people who believe the earth is flat (with their own science that they think backs it up) "round-earth deniers"?

Do you think that would help or hinder the situation if we did?

[acdha]

They’re called science denier, which isn’t much different, and “flat earther” has a significantly negative connotation as well. I think the term matters less than pushing things into the appropriate context: leave religion a person choice but reinforce the secular world as following rational principles.

[robxorb]

I don't call them a science denier - which is about the most self-contradictory term anyone could come up with. Science is the process of questioning and doubting prior science. You're not "denying science" to question science.

I call them "flat-earthers", as that's something that is usefully descriptive of their views and that they themselves seem happy to be called.

That is, it's a name that doesn't also necessarily insult them, which as I see it serves no useful purpose for anyone and simply causes antagonism and less of an ability to successfully communicate.

Which, by the way, is the only working solution to disagreement.

[consteval]

Probably help, as that's the nicest thing I've seen someone call them.

[holsta]

This type of response is called tone policing, which is often used against feminism or anti-racism advocates, who insist people use nice language while they are being denied basic existence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing

We've tried raw science and data for more than 100 years when the oil industry correctly predicted our current levels of CO2, and then kept doing business as usual. We knew something was up around 1821, and had a firm grasp of the situation by 1861 (one eight six one):

https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicte...

If you make money by risking the lives of my family, I'm done being polite.

[anon373839]

This type of response is called “disingenuous”.

[fsflover]

Could you elaborate why you think so?

[anon373839]

Gladly. The response pretends to address the argument, but instead relies on another pejorative label rather than substantive commentary. It also tries to smear the original poster with an association to anti-feminist and anti-antiracist critics (while, I might add, conveniently recharacterizing those movements as merely calling for the use of “nice language”, and therefore apparently beyond criticism).

[consteval]

A few problems:

1. Tone policing is not a pejorative, it's just what they're doing. Saying "please sound nicer" IS tone-policing. If people don't like being told they're tone policing (lol), they should stop tone policing. Problem solved.

2. Association to racism and anti-feminism. Whether you choose to admit it or not, there IS a strong association between all of these. They didn't claim the original commentator was one, but they pointed out their argument is used by them, which is true.

And, the association is real and well understood. That doesn't mean it's a perfect association, like everyone who denies climate change hates women or something, but certainly the odds are higher. Because, generally, those beliefs stem from the same place. Conservative beliefs. Again, not all, but there ARE strings tying those together and they're not made up.

3. Lack of substantive commentary. Sorry, there isn't any to be provided. "Climate denier sounds bad" isn't really an argument, you can't disprove that. They're just noting that bending over backwards is ONLY really awarded to the most privileged. Meaning, nobody asks a climate denier to "sound nicer" when talking about the government. Just like nobody asks a racist to sound nicer in their racism, but if you call out a racist you could very well be told to sound nicer as to not scare them off. As if they're on the cusp of realization (lol).

[anon373839]

More disingenuousness (or, perhaps, just lack of careful reading?).

1. The term “tone policing” was used here as a pejorative, discussion-terminating label. The response tagged the OP with that label and then did nothing to explain why this arbitrary tag mattered. The clear purpose was to discredit via name-calling.

2. Any association you perceive to exist to feminism and antiracism is irrelevant to this discussion. And you’re doing it again, by the way - lumping everyone under a label of “conservative beliefs” which nobody asked for. (I don’t fit that label at all, yet I agree with the criticism in the original post.)

3. “There isn’t any [substantive commentary] to be provided” almost perfectly encapsulates what is so grating and deficient about the rhetorical style and worldview on display in the response. “My position is so obviously right and self-evident that anyone who could dare to disagree with me shall be named and shamed, and not engaged with.” Had you paid some attention to the overall context of this discussion, you might have noticed, e.g., that one criticism of the label is that it’s being used against people who don’t deny climate change. Let that sink in.

[ceejayoz]

> If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?

They'd probably laugh a bit; Muslims consider Jesus to be a legitimate prophet, just not the last.

That aside, religious stuff like "was Jesus the Messiah?" isn't quite the same as "is climate change happening". Some of the fervor around it may be religious-like, but the core facts are... facts.

[voidUpdate]

What term would you propose we use instead of climate change denier?

[cwillu]

Stop trying to lump a heterogenous collection of people with various views, opinions and concerns into a single term whereby you can conveniently dismiss them.

[JoeAltmaier]

They have the common feature of, being glad to trade our lives for money. It's a helpful and useful label for people standing in the way of efforts to save our ecology and civilization.

That's what words are for. Nobody is going to stop because you're upset at being correctly labelled.

[voidUpdate]

I mean when people are ignoring facts, to the point that its probably going to hurt people, I feel like I'm justified in trying to know who they are, like "transphobe", "racist", "ableist", "climate change denier". I'm aware that JK Rowling and Graham Linehan probably have various views, opinions and concerns, but neither of them want me and my friends to exist

[cwillu]

See how convenient that was!

[voidUpdate]

...I'm not sure if you're trying to deny that those two people are transphobic?

[cwillu]

I'm trying to point out that you've entire dismissed the (incorrect!) views on climate change of many people because two other people are transphobic.

[ifyoubuildit]

A-fucking-men. That's our single largest development of the last 20 years or so: not smartphones, not AI, not social media. We developed the confident, decisive, emotional, and wrong use of fuzzy bullshit labels that mean something slightly different to everyone using them.

People are too busy being pious and righteous to be precise enough to actually communicate a point.

[archagon]

If people refuse to listen to decades of scientific consensus, I see nothing wrong with turning to classic shaming at some point.

[robxorb]

"Classic shaming" always having been an effective method of...?

It may make you feel better, but it doesn't work. It's right there at the beginning of cycles of dysfunction, because it is that: dysfunctional.

[loudmax]

Frankly, the belief that massive increases in fossil fuel emissions have no appreciable impact on the Earth's climate is risible. People have a right to believe what they want, but we also have a right to ridicule and deride people for holding delusional beliefs.

Mainstream beliefs should be able to stand up to scrutiny and you're allowed to challenge them. But your challenge should have some basis in reality. If you constantly deny decades of accumulated evidence because it's mainstream orthodoxy, you're going to find yourself aligning with the flat-earthers and holocaust deniers.