=“lynnvinc, post:34, topic:450179, full:true”]
Denialist is an appropriate term.
Then you won’t mind if AGW proponents are referred to as alarmists, or GW authoritarians, since there is a constant effort to silence those who disagree with the ACC movement.
Skeptic refers to a person who does not accept something due to lack of evidence, but is willing to accept it if good evidence and theory are given. For CC such has been given since 1995, when warming reached 95% confidence, and the theory has been with us for some 200 years and is solidly accepted by science. Since then the evidence has become much stronger, and the last of the skeptics switched to accepting anthropogenic CC by 2005.
Actually, the evidence is not stronger, since there has been a roughly 18 year period where ther has been no warming. The computer models and predictions are consistently wrong, the data often manipulated by the GW authoritarians.
So we are now 12 from then, and those who do not accept it by now should most certainly be called denialists, because there is no evidence whatsoever – even if Hurricane Zelda were to crash into their mid-western houses 10 or 20 years from now – that would ever convince them. Nothing at all could ever convince them.
Ridiculous hyperbole, just like the use of the term denialist is.
BTW, there are still a good number of Holocaust denialists over 70 years after the fact. Don’t know where you got the idea they had all disappeared or switched into accepters.
It is instructive that this is included in your post. It confirms the hideous use by progressives of this linkage between those who question the often flawed models that are used to as “evidence” for ACC, and those who make the idiotic claim that the Holocaust didn’t happen. Use of the term denial in the discussion of climate change is shameful.