The trouble with the word "denialist" is that it's not clear exactly what the denialist is denying. There are a bunch of different things which one could deny, ranging from the sensible-to-deny to the silly-to-deny.
It is exactly clear what climate change denialists are denying: They are denying that humans should do something about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are a number of different ways to 'implement' that denial, such as denying that climate change is happening in the first place or denying that humans are causing it, but it always leads to the same conclusion, and therefore - I am suspecting - always has the same motivation: Intellectual laziness, not wanting to rethink one's own lifestyle.
I disagree passionately. I complete agree that the climate is changing. It could have devestating effects, but the idea that it's caused by us, is not backed up by evidence IMHO.
There is a whole raft of evidence showing that co2 is released because the earth is hotter. There's evidence to show the 'green house effect' doesn't really do much. There's evidence to show direct correlation between sunspots, and the temperature on earth.
To label people 'denialists' and 'intelectually lazy' is offensive. Of course we shouldn't use so much oil. We should be more efficient. But the reasons for blaming humanity for global warming are shady. More to do with money and power, and oppressing the third world.
The "Global warming is caused by man" theory has turned into a religion instead of actually looking at the latest available evidence to make an informed decision. that is intelectually lazy.
Well thanks for disagreeing "passionately", seems like you have evidence that I don't have. I can only hope for you that your conclusions match your reality and that you will therefore have a happy life with no bad surprises.
