Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenec...

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship.

We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic.

Unified theory of the crank

Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics
include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism,
Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco
carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign),
anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal
testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the
ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or
partisanship.

Laceym, Your comment is foolish. If you want to call the IPCC 2001 report denialism, that is your right. I am dealing with science and you are dealing with hysteria. Care to take a stab at telling me why you b...

Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics
include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism,
Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco
carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign),
anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal
testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the
ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or
partisanship.

Laceym, Your comment is foolish. If you want to call the IPCC 2001 report denialism, that is your right. I am dealing with science and you are dealing with hysteria. Care to take a stab at telling me why you believe in anthropogenic global warming ?

There is a dynamic which occurs in real science. When a hypothesis is proposed and is correct, the evidence mounts and increases in an exponential way. When a hypothesis is garbage it sits and rots on the vine. This is what has happened in the global warming hypothesis. ALL the science suggests the current warming period is not unusual, not anthropogenic, and is coinciding with increased solar radiation which has also warmed other planets and moons in the Solar System in a similar way. 95-96% of green house gas is ocean evaporation. The rest is partially consists of CO2, almost ALL of which occurs naturally. Further, there are an uncountable number of feedback loops which limit the effects of warming, for example: upper-atmospheric winds increase, planet-wide greening, colder polar ice-caps, shifting ocean currents, an untold number of varying terrestrial feedback loops. There is no computer model that can account for them all. And the biggest kicker of all is that the Earth is actually cooler now than it's over-all "knowable" average.

Also the "consensus" is in the midst of a polar shift. See: The Oregon Petition.

Laceym, if your not agenda driven and hell-bent on the fact your right about this, and you want more facts, I will

For example, this peer-reviewed journal directly contradicts your assertion.

willhelm:

ALL the science suggests the current warming period is not unusual, not anthropogenic, and is coinciding with increased solar radiation

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing. Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases hav...

read more»

For example, this peer-reviewed journal directly contradicts your assertion.

willhelm:

ALL the science suggests the current warming period is not unusual, not anthropogenic, and is coinciding with increased solar radiation

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing. Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.