"DENIER" the term that is costing alarmists all credibility.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Sep 4, 2014
30,837
20,610
"DENIER" the term that is costing alarmists all credibility.

First a bit of history on the term 'denier'. It was a term coined to illustrate how out of touch the Mullah's of Iran were when they denied that Adolph Hitler had used their hatred of the Jews and his attempt to commit genocide with which they agreed. It has been a long standing belief by radical Islamist's that the Jews must be forcefully removed from the earth. The supreme Ayatollah Khomeini was the most forceful of the twelve clerics and denial of what Hitler had done because he agreed with the genocide which had been committed.

"Ayatollah (UK /aɪəˈtɒlə/ or US /aɪəˈtoʊlə/; Persian: آيت‌الله‎ ayatollah from Arabic: آية الله‎, āyatu allah "Sign of Allah") is a high-ranking title given to Usuli Twelver Shī'ah clerics." source

The use of the Term denier was used by the US and its allies in an attempt to shame the Islamic powers about their willful ignorance and their deeply held belief that the Jews must be eradicated. Its use was derogatory and demeaning to illustrate how despicable and immoral this belief was.

So why has such a despicable association been placed on those who do not toe the liberal power hungry agenda line in CAGW?

Saul Alyinsky was as Communist who believed that the state should own everything to include the bodies of all person in the country. That the state was all knowing and the only the state is capable of distributing money and food equally to all except themselves who were above the common people or slaves. Saul used very simple tactics to attack those with whom he disagreed. One of the Rules for radical states in part; Freeze it, Frame, and Polarize your opponents.

James Hansen and Michale Mann are the first to use the term 'denier' in describing those who exposed their false works and brought them much shame. They attached on to the Alyinsky rules for radicals. Now every major UN agenda 21 and IPCC climactic researcher who has been exposed as frauds and their work discredited use this term to deflect from their own shame. They use this denigrating term in an effort to silence thier opponents and they refuse to produce thier scientific work in open forum for all to replicate and either affirm or show false their theory's.

Very few people who work in the climactic research, myself included, deny that the earths climate is changing. Nor do we deny that man might have some incremental impact. What we demand is open, repeatable, and verifiable science from those in the IPCC, EPA, and other Federal and world leaders. Policy statements are not empirical evidence. The models on which those policy statements are crafted are not emperical evidence of any kind, yet they are treated like science even thought they fail in every respect. So we ask questions and demand hard evidence as we are lied to, mislead, and defamed because we scientists and lay persons challenge those who have lost site of what science and the scientific method demands.

The alarmist are now loosing the battle because they denigrate people and use unprofessional rhetoric which only exposes themselves as the low life forms they are, unacceptable, liars, thieves, and power hungry fools. They choose to hide their work, hide from open debates, and are vile useless leaches on the public dole who must cease all debate and information flow that might cease the gravy train on which they feast beacuse it would expose them as the frauds they are. And when the earth shows these fools liars, they attempt to rewritte the climactic record and scream deniers at the top of their lungs to try and hide their actions of desperate whores.

The use of the term "denier" is nothing more than a liars way to silence those who are intent on exposing him. In its use they expose themselves. Funny how the current Obama adminsitartion is so afraid of WE THE PEOPLE that they have cut off all EPA information and insist that it is for our own good.... They scream "Denier" to all those set to expose them... And their minions chant along like recorded sock puppets as millions laugh at their ignorance.

"Who is more foolish, the fool? Or the fool who follows?" (Obi Wan Keno-bi)

The Use of the term "Denier" is slur in every respect and no one who gains respect uses it to run from open debate or to try and prove themselves respectable as it shows that they are not.
 
Actual origin: 1250-1300; Middle English denien < Old French denier < Latin dēnegāre. Deny Define Deny at Dictionary.com

Someone who denies.

Do you think it was immoral to term those who denied that the events of 9/11 were terrorist acts - that they were instead, the work of the US government, "deniers"?

People who deny AGW or legitimately termed "deniers". As we saw pointed out just the other day, the parallel with holocaust deniers is not in their moral standing, but in their practice of denying undeniable evidence.
 
Denier is an AGWCult secret handshake word, it's how they identify each other. No real scientist uses it and the ones who do are disclosing their cult membership
 
Actual origin: 1250-1300; Middle English denien < Old French denier < Latin dēnegāre. Deny Define Deny at Dictionary.com

Someone who denies.

Do you think it was immoral to term those who denied that the events of 9/11 were terrorist acts - that they were instead, the work of the US government, "deniers"?

People who deny AGW or legitimately termed "deniers". As we saw pointed out just the other day, the parallel with holocaust deniers is not in their moral standing, but in their practice of denying undeniable evidence.

You are laughable.. An attempt to deflect from your own shortcomings. I have yet to see from you, old rocks or any other person on this forum any scientific work which specifically identifies what mans contribution is by empirical evidence or what atmospheric changes can be directly attributed to that change. yet you scream "denier" .

The CIA and other agencies of that day were very clear on why they coined the term "denier" and what its purpose was.. You really have no historical footing in your effort to justify your use of it.
 
If one has half a brain and reads some Alinsky, connecting the dots on climate change science becomes far more simple!!!:coffee:


Environmentalism has always been a cornerstone of hyper-socialism. Its right there in the writings of progressives like Alinsky. And every AGW alarmist in here knows it too!!!:biggrin::biggrin::deal:
 
Truth hurts. Deniers wouldn't cry like this if the truth of the world "denier" wasn't making the whole world laugh at them.

Suck it up, deniers. We're not going to stop using standard English just because you're all getting PC about it.
 
Truth hurts. Deniers wouldn't cry like this if the truth of the world "denier" wasn't making the whole world laugh at them.

Suck it up, deniers. We're not going to stop using standard English just because you're all getting PC about it.

PC about it? Your the fuck wits who used it and now that I expose you as the pieces of lying crap you are, you want to project on others that your use of the term is somehow justified...

As long as you get to be a little bitch and throw a tantrum using the term, your all sorts of happy but when you are shown what it is you are actually saying about others and you are pinned down about its use you cry... Now you want to go off waaaaaaaaaaaaing because you got your wittel feelings hurt..

Your failure to even acknowledge the slur shouts volumes about what you are and your lack of any ethical fiber.. The Ends Justify the Means. A very dangerous liberal/progressive ideology and you are not above the LAW and neither is your god OBama....
 
Last edited:
No real scientist uses it and the ones who do

None do and the ones who do...

There are lots of "real scientists" who have used the term. However, the point I think you were trying to make, is valid. This topic is completely irrelevant to the validity of the science. AGW is supported by mountains of evidence. Denying the obvious conclusions of that evidence is irrational and unsupportable. Coming on a forum like this and simply insisting that one's pov is correct is a waste of everyone's time. And if it requires reposting something now and then, I think we can all live with it. If we stop putting up evidence, the value of this forum has dropped below zero. Some consistency in the moderation might be a good thing as well.
 
I have yet to see from you, old rocks or any other person on this forum any scientific work which specifically identifies what mans contribution is by empirical evidence or what atmospheric changes can be directly attributed to that change. yet you scream "denier" .
[/quote]

Then, you haven't been looking. Let's try... hmm... perhaps.. YES: www.ipcc.ch

The CIA and other agencies of that day were very clear on why they coined the term "denier" and what its purpose was.. You really have no historical footing in your effort to justify your use of it.

The CIA are not linguists or etymologists. They have no interest in the history of a word - they are reporting on a specific instance of usage. If you have no problem with people thinking you deny undeniable evidence, just as do flat earthers, folks who think we never went to the moon, people who think the US government blew up the WTC and people who deny the Holocaust ever took place, then more power to you. But don't complain when people call you a denier, because that's what you are.
 
No real scientist uses it and the ones who do

None do and the ones who do...

There are lots of "real scientists" who have used the term. However, the point I think you were trying to make, is valid. This topic is completely irrelevant to the validity of the science. AGW is supported by mountains of evidence. Denying the obvious conclusions of that evidence is irrational and unsupportable. Coming on a forum like this and simply insisting that one's pov is correct is a waste of everyone's time. And if it requires reposting something now and then, I think we can all live with it. If we stop putting up evidence, the value of this forum has dropped below zero. Some consistency in the moderation might be a good thing as well.

I stand by what I said, no real scientist uses the word "Denier" you only find it in the AGWCult.
 
I have yet to see from you, old rocks or any other person on this forum any scientific work which specifically identifies what mans contribution is by empirical evidence or what atmospheric changes can be directly attributed to that change. yet you scream "denier" .

Then, you haven't been looking. Let's try... hmm... perhaps.. YES: www.ipcc.ch

The CIA and other agencies of that day were very clear on why they coined the term "denier" and what its purpose was.. You really have no historical footing in your effort to justify your use of it.

The CIA are not linguists or etymologists. They have no interest in the history of a word - they are reporting on a specific instance of usage. If you have no problem with people thinking you deny undeniable evidence, just as do flat earthers, folks who think we never went to the moon, people who think the US government blew up the WTC and people who deny the Holocaust ever took place, then more power to you. But don't complain when people call you a denier, because that's what you are.[/QUOTE]

IPCC is a fraud, they outright told us they have noting to do with science, their priority is redistributing wealth
 
You flubbed your quotes Frank. You have switched our attributions.
 
Last edited:
Over at RC they've been using the term "denier" to describe hockey stick debunkers for about a decade. They're sore losers, they tried to trick the scientific community and got caught, and they're still pissed about it.
 
I have yet to see from you, old rocks or any other person on this forum any scientific work which specifically identifies what mans contribution is by empirical evidence or what atmospheric changes can be directly attributed to that change. yet you scream "denier" .

Then, you haven't been looking. Let's try... hmm... perhaps.. YES: www.ipcc.ch

The CIA and other agencies of that day were very clear on why they coined the term "denier" and what its purpose was.. You really have no historical footing in your effort to justify your use of it.

The CIA are not linguists or etymologists. They have no interest in the history of a word - they are reporting on a specific instance of usage. If you have no problem with people thinking you deny undeniable evidence, just as do flat earthers, folks who think we never went to the moon, people who think the US government blew up the WTC and people who deny the Holocaust ever took place, then more power to you. But don't complain when people call you a denier, because that's what you are.

IPCC is a fraud, they outright told us they have noting to do with science, their priority is redistributing wealth

You flubbed your quotes Frank. You have switched our attributions.[/QUOTE]

IPCC is a total fraud.
 
No real scientist uses it and the ones who do

None do and the ones who do...

There are lots of "real scientists" who have used the term. However, the point I think you were trying to make, is valid. This topic is completely irrelevant to the validity of the science. AGW is supported by mountains of evidence. Denying the obvious conclusions of that evidence is irrational and unsupportable. Coming on a forum like this and simply insisting that one's pov is correct is a waste of everyone's time. And if it requires reposting something now and then, I think we can all live with it. If we stop putting up evidence, the value of this forum has dropped below zero. Some consistency in the moderation might be a good thing as well.
You are confusing climate change with man made climate change. Their is 4.5 billion years of evidence on natural global climate change, Zippo on man made global climate change, no evidence if we weren't here would it have changed on its own.

All you have is a gut feeling with all the people, that's not science.ya say look at the colorful charts in the past 100 year's a 100 year's is nothing to 4.5 billion year's. If you could put a graph up of the actual year to year temperture of earth when it was born till today, people would think you alarmist are a Fucking freak show and laugh you out of the house.
 
Outside of the AGWCult, have you ever heard any scientist in any other field call a skeptic a "Denier!!!"?
 
I stand by what I said, no real scientist uses the word "Denier" you only find it in the AGWCult.

Top Scientists To Media Stop Using Skeptic To Describe Climate Science Deniers ThinkProgress

Top Scientists To Media: Stop Using ‘Skeptic’ To Describe Climate Science Deniers

Here you go Frank, scientists who call you and yours "DENIERS"

CSI Fellows and Staff
At the Center for Inquiry–Transnational
  • Edward Tabash, Chairman
  • Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO, Center for Inquiry
  • Barry Karr, Executive Director
  • Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow
  • Massimo Polidoro, Research Fellow
  • Richard Wiseman, Research Fellow
Fellows
  • James E. Alcock* psychologist, York Univ., Toronto
  • Marcia Angell MD, former editor-in-chief, New England Journal of Medicine
  • Kimball Atwood IV MD, physician, author, Newton, MA
  • Stephen Barrett MD, psychiatrist, author, consumer advocate, Allentown, PA
  • Willem Betz MD, professor of medicine, Univ. of Brussels
  • Irving Biederman psychologist, Univ. of Southern CA
  • Sandra Blakeslee science writer; author; New York Times science correspondent
  • Susan Blackmore visiting lecturer, Univ. of the West of England, Bristol
  • Mark Boslough physicist, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
  • Henri Broch physicist, Univ. of Nice, France
  • Jan Harold Brunvand folklorist, professor emeritus
of English, Univ. of Utah
  • Mario Bunge philosopher, McGill Univ., Montreal
  • Robert T. Carroll emeritus professor of philosophy, Sacramento City College, writer
  • Sean B. Carroll molecular geneticist, vice president for science education, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Madison, WI
  • Thomas R. Casten energy expert; founder and chairman, Recycled Energy Development, Westmont, IL
  • John R. Cole anthropologist, editor, National Center for Science Education
  • K.C. Cole science writer, author, professor, Univ. of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Journalism
  • Frederick Crews literary and cultural critic, professor emeritus of English, Univ. of CA, Berkeley
  • Richard Dawkins zoologist, Oxford Univ.
  • Geoffrey Dean technical editor, Perth, Australia
  • Cornelis de Jager professor of astrophysics, Univ. of Utrecht, the Netherlands
  • Daniel C. Dennett Univ. professor and Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, director of
Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts Univ.
  • Ann Druyan writer and producer; CEO, Cosmos Studios, Ithaca, NY
  • Sanal Edamaruku president, Indian Rationalist Association and Rationalist International
  • Edzard Ernst professor, Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, UK
  • Kenneth Feder professor of anthropology,
Central Connecticut State Univ.
  • Barbara Forrest professor of philosophy, SE Louisiana Univ.
  • Andrew Fraknoi astronomer, Foothill College, Los Altos Hills, CA
  • Kendrick Frazier* science writer, editor, Skeptical Inquirer
  • Christopher C. French professor, department of psychology, and head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths College, Univ. of London
  • Luigi Garlaschelli chemist, Università di Pavia (Italy), research fellow of CICAP, the Italian skeptics group
  • Maryanne Garry professor, School of Psychology, Victoria Univ. of Wellington, New Zealand
  • Murray Gell-Mann professor of physics, Santa Fe Institute; Nobel laureate
  • Thomas Gilovich psychologist, Cornell Univ.
  • David H. Gorski cancer surgeon and researcher at Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute and chief of breast surgery section, Wayne State University School of Medicine
  • Wendy M. Grossman writer; founder and first editor, The Skeptic magazine (UK)
  • Susan Haack Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Sciences, professor of philosophy and professor of Law, Univ. of Miami
  • Harriet Hall MD, family physician, investigator, Puyallup, WA
  • David J. Helfand professor of astronomy, Columbia Univ.
  • Terence M. Hines prof. of psychology, Pace Univ., Pleasantville, NY
  • Douglas R. Hofstadter professor of human understanding and cognitive science, Indiana Univ.
  • Gerald Holton Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and professor of history of science, Harvard Univ.
  • Ray Hyman* psychologist, Univ. of Oregon
  • Stuart D. Jordan NASA astrophysicist emeritus, science advisor to Center for Inquiry Office of Public Policy, Washington, D.C.
  • Barry Karr executive director, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, Amherst, New York
  • Lawrence M. Krauss foundation professor, School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics Dept.; director, Origins Initiative, Arizona State Univ.
  • Harry Kroto professor of chemistry and biochemistry, Florida State Univ.; Nobel laureate
  • Edwin C. Krupp astronomer, director, Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles, CA
  • Lawrence Kusche science writer
  • Leon Lederman emeritus director, Fermilab; Nobel laureate in physics
  • Scott O. Lilienfeld* psychologist, Emory Univ., Atlanta, GA
  • Lin Zixin former editor, Science and Technology Daily (China)
  • Jere Lipps Museum of Paleontology, Univ. of CA, Berkeley
  • Elizabeth Loftus* professor of psychology, Univ. of CA, Irvine
  • David Marks psychologist, City Univ., London
  • Mario Mendez-Acosta journalist and science writer, Mexico City
  • Kenneth R. Miller professor of biology, Brown Univ.
  • Marvin Minsky professor of media arts and sciences, M.I.T.
  • David Morrison space scientist, NASA Ames Research Center
  • Richard A. Muller professor of physics, Univ. of CA, Berkeley
  • Joe Nickell senior research fellow, CSI
  • Jan Willem Nienhuys mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands
  • Lee Nisbet philosopher, Medaille College
  • Steven Novella MD, assistant professor of neurology, Yale Univ. School of Medicine
  • Bill Nye science educator and television host, Nye Labs
  • James E. Oberg science writer
  • Irmgard Oepen professor of medicine (retired), Marburg, Germany
  • Loren Pankratz psychologist, Oregon Health Sciences Univ.
  • Robert L. Park professor of physics, Univ. of Maryland
  • Jay M. Pasachoff Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and director of the Hopkins Observatory, Williams College
  • John Paulos mathematician, Temple Univ.
  • Clifford A. Pickover scientist, author, editor, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
  • Massimo Pigliucci professor of philosophy, City Univ. of New York–Lehman College
  • Steven Pinker cognitive scientist, Harvard Univ.
  • Massimo Polidoro science writer, author, executive director of CICAP, Italy
  • Anthony R. Pratkanis professor of psychology, Univ. of California, Santa Cruz
  • Benjamin Radford investigator; research fellow, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
  • James “The Amazing” Randi magician, CSICOP founding member; founder, James Randi Educational Foundation
  • Milton Rosenberg psychologist, Univ. of Chicago
  • Amardeo Sarma* chairman, GWUP, Germany
  • Richard Saunders Life Member of Australian Skeptics; educator; investigator; podcaster; Sydney, Australia
  • Joe Schwarcz director, McGill Office for Science and Society
  • Eugenie C. Scott* physical anthropologist, executive director, National Center for Science Education
  • Robert Sheaffer science writer
  • Seth Shostak senior astronomer, SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA
  • Simon Singh science writer; broadcaster; UK
  • Dick Smith film producer, publisher, Terrey Hills, N.S.W., Australia
  • Keith E. Stanovich cognitive psychologist; professor of human development and applied psychology, Univ. of Toronto
  • Victor J. Stenger emeritus professor of physics and astronomy, Univ. of Hawaii; adjunct professor of philosophy, Univ. of CO
  • Karen Stollznow* linguist; skeptical investigator; writer; podcaster
  • Jill Cornell Tarter astronomer, SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA
  • Carol Tavris psychologist and author, Los Angeles, CA
  • David E. Thomas* physicist and mathematician, Peralta, NM
  • Neil deGrasse Tyson astrophysicist and director, Hayden Planetarium, New York City
  • Indre Viskontas cognitive neuroscientist, tv and podcast host, and opera singer, San Francisco, CA
  • Marilyn vos Savant Parade magazine contributing editor
  • Steven Weinberg professor of physics and astronomy, Univ. of Texas at Austin; Nobel laureate
  • E.O. Wilson Univ. professor emeritus, organismic and evolutionary biology, Harvard Univ.
  • Richard Wiseman psychologist, Univ. of Hertfordshire, England
  • Benjamin Wolozin professor, department of pharmacology, Boston Univ. School of Medicine
  • Marvin Zelen statistician, Harvard Univ.
 
You are confusing climate change with man made climate change. Their is 4.5 billion years of evidence on natural global climate change, Zippo on man made global climate change, no evidence if we weren't here would it have changed on its own.

All you have is a gut feeling with all the people, that's not science.ya say look at the colorful charts in the past 100 year's a 100 year's is nothing to 4.5 billion year's. If you could put a graph up of the actual year to year temperture of earth when it was born till today, people would think you alarmist are a Fucking freak show and laugh you out of the house.

That is incorrect. There is a mountain of evidence that the primary cause of the warming experienced over the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions. And no one on my side of this argument has ever suggested that the climate has been static prior to anthropogenic effects. Look up AR5's "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch
 
Last edited:
You are confusing climate change with man made climate change. Their is 4.5 billion years of evidence on natural global climate change, Zippo on man made global climate change, no evidence if we weren't here would it have changed on its own.

All you have is a gut feeling with all the people, that's not science.ya say look at the colorful charts in the past 100 year's a 100 year's is nothing to 4.5 billion year's. If you could put a graph up of the actual year to year temperture of earth when it was born till today, people would think you alarmist are a Fucking freak show and laugh you out of the house.

That is incorrect. There is a mountain of evidence that the primary cause of the warming experienced over the last 150 years has been the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions. And no one on my side of this argument has ever suggested that the climate has been static prior to anthropogenic effects. Look up "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch

IPCC is a fraud.

Now post the chart that show how CO2 creates warming, you know, the chart with no temperature axis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top