Denier, sceptic or creationist? How about none of the above?
James Randerson of the Guardian's Environment blog has attempted to coin the phrase for those who 'deny evidence that human-induced global warming is occurring'.
He's rightly uncomfortable with the term 'deniers' because of the indelible link to Holocaust denial, arguing that it allows the debate to be characterised as 'political'. He doesn't much like the term 'sceptic' either, writing: '[Christopher] Booker and David Bellamy do not deserve the honourable mantle of "sceptic".'
In the end, he struck upon 'creationist': 'Think about it,' writes Randerson, 'They operate in very similar ways. They have a fixed position and ignore evidence that does not fit their case. And they cherry-pick shreds of data that do appear to back them up.'
OK, here's an alternative suggestion. Why the need for name-calling? Surely it's a tactic that can only make the debate less scientific rather than more? Does lumping everyone you disagree with under a single label make your views more compelling or simply make your opponents easier to stigmatise? Discuss.
Follow up:
Follow up:
Comments