Yahoo Global Warming. Which is a more accurate term: denier or alarmist?
Alarmist. Noun. Someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic.
Denier. Noun. One who denies something.
Does the word "denier" even make sense?
If a guy murders someone and denies he did it, then you don't call him a "denier." You just say he denied killing. If your kid takes a cookie and denies it, then you don't call him a "denier." You just say, "He denied taking that cookie from the jar."
It's a nonsensical term that opposes proper English.
Would "global warming" believers be alarmist because they can't even find a word that is proper English?
- 3 months agoFavorite Answer
The problem with "denier" is that many imply that the person is a "climate denier" but not many people deny climate in reality. The other option is that they mean "a denier of climate change" but, again, not many people think that the climate does not change.
Now what would you call people who say:
Civilisation will end within 15 to 30 years [from 1970] ...
We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation ...
Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born…
[By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions.
It is already too late to avoid mass starvation ...
... by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.
In a decade [from 1970], urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…
I could go on. The above are all predictions from the first Earth Day and many are made by "scientists". Alarmist sounds like an accurate description to me.
- CowboyLv 63 months ago
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! republicans are so totally clueless and so very bad for democracy ans so gullible and stupid LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! losers
- DaroLv 73 months ago
Never found anyone who "denies" Climate Changes.
Alarmists like to substitute Climate Change for "Man made (sic American) Global Warming" which is the "issue" they say they are combating.
Alarmists use a lot of false terminology to distract from the distortions (lies) they are using to push the alarm.
- Climate RealistLv 73 months ago
Denier is accurate. Alarmist is not.
An "alarmist" is anyone who accepts the scientific evidence that humans are causing Earth to warm. "Deniers" deny it in spite of the evidence.
Deniers are not skeptics. A skeptic would be skeptical of such claim as the Medieval Warm Period being warmer than now or that scientists are lying to please their masters when their only masters are the Republican government.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous3 months ago
be mitigated by making changes in our energy production that (due to finite reserves of fossil fuel) will have to be made anyway.
Severe, catastrophic global warmin
- Anonymous3 months ago
The Oxford dictionary describes a denier as "A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.". It gives as examples "a prominent denier of global warming" and "a climate change denier" as examples. So yes, denier makes sense linguistically to the makers of the principal historical dictionary of the English language.
There are many people here deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and or that we are dumping large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere as a waste product of burning fossil fuels. I think that if any one denies either, or both, the term denier is appropriate (and rather polite) in the context of this section of YA.
Others, who are labeled deniers have come to accept those two simple facts and just deny that it is a problem their ego is such that they think they know more than the experts. Again the term denier is appropriate and rather polite.
Then there are some who claim that is a scheme by scientist to persuade politicians to impose more taxes on every one, including the scientist. Or more popular these days, they claim the scientists are trying to get more grants to enrich themselves. I would call them conspiracy theorist, or even alarmist especially considering that climate change denier in chief, Trump, is in charge. (That guys claims he knows more about everything than any one else)
In the real world. revenue neutral carbon taxes have been proposed by both Democrats and Republicans and (an ineffective) version is even supported by big oil. There are people who claim that government would not be capable of doing that properly, I would call them pessimists. Another claim is that a revenue neutral carbon tax is socialism, I would call those people alarmists. One only has to look at the Alaska Permanent Fund, introduced Jay Hammond, a Republican, who advocated for environmentally and fiscally responsible government as well as individual civic responsibility.
JimZ claims "They use the term denier to compare to Holocaust denial."
No "they" don't, that is just more paranoia by snowflakes. Like I pointed out, even the Oxford dictionary gives "a prominent denier of global warming" and "a climate change denier" as examples and they are the only two examples. Grow up already, if you deny man made global warming. In this section it is superfluous to add "man made global warming" to denier. Or even "man made" to "global warming" for that matter. Normal people, and especially those who are familiar with this section, are well aware of those things. If you deny something, at least be man enough to wear the label "denier" with pride in this section of YA.
The good news is that there are fewer deniers these days. In 2019 58% of U.S. republicans, the group who is mos likely to deny global warming, say that they are concerned about human cause damage to the planet while only 17% of republicans explicitly say they don’t worry about this (the rest is undecided).
- Anonymous3 months ago
If you see the murderer in your example walking down the street and phone the police, you would not consider yourself an "alarmist". It's not alarmist if the threat is real, which climate change certainly is.
The dark alternate realities existing in the heads of deniers -- that dystopian nightmare they hide from under the blankets at night, petrified of some ultra-competent shadow group manipulating scientists as part of a sadistic scheme to destroy the West and turn us all into government slaves -- sounds a lot more "alarmist" to me than the challenge of climate change.
- JimZLv 73 months ago
They use the term denier to compare to Holocaust denial. That is their game and their intent. It is important to be accurate. They play a disgusting political game that if you show any skepticism of their unfounded theories, you are compared to people that are unworthy of further consideration. This is why they also call anyone that dares to call them on their lies as racists or people that want dirty air and dirty water. They sometimes invent similar word like denialist. That is a like calling a black man a similar sounding N-word and pretending it is fine and dandy. When I am called the D-word, it is a guarantee that I will treat the person who said it with the same respect and decency which they used which is none.
I have mapped plenty of geologic formations demonstrating climates change dramatically. Calling me a "climate change" denier is not only idiotic, it is offensive and wrong. I obviously don't deny the climates change. These zealots try to pretend that climates never changed until capitalism suddenly caused it to change so these zealots are closer to climate change deniers than skeptics. I don't even like the term skeptic because it implies that alarmists are making a reasonable and arguable theory. They aren't. They are lying and exaggerating for a political agenda. Most that post here probably believe the lies and are just the useful idiots that want to feel important and they believe they are saving the planet. In fact, their ignorance and gullibility is a danger to freedom and prosperity. It is part of a never ending attempt by elites and big government to tax and control their populations.
I see in my comment, some are hinting at the other big lie with our CO2 and that is ocean acidification. The idea that our CO2 can harm the ocean's chemistry is ludicrous when you know that carbonates were being precipitated at quantities even greater than today when CO2 was 20 times as concentrated. Dirac will no doubt ask if CO2 will increase carbonic acid and then imply that is somehow indicates catastrophe. It is nonsense and he claims to have doctorate (My head is shaking and my eyes are rolling). Add a little carbonic acid and you will have more calcite dissolve and then more is available as supersaturated solution to precipitate in warm shallow oceans. The actual pH is around 8 and will never get anywhere close to neutral at least in the foreseeable future and not due to our CO2 emissions.
- Anonymous3 months ago
Since the data is unquestionably accurate and alarming I'd say denier.
- cosmoLv 73 months ago
Prediction is hard. The worst-case scenarios for global warming are very bad indeed --- continued warming for several centuries that will result in the death of most (but not all) life on Earth. This is a POSSIBILITY. It can be mitigated by making changes in our energy production that (due to finite reserves of fossil fuel) will have to be made anyway.
Severe, catastrophic global warming MAY NOT HAPPEN. But there is no way to be certain of that, as "deniers" are.