David44 posted this, so I went to paste it into one of our existing discussions on "denier" for easy future reference, but unfortunately those threads have got very noisy, so I created this new one to store useful reference info

- "Tom Scharf provides the best summation of the denier epithet dynamic I've seen yet in a comment to Keith Kloor's recent post,
"Learning to Live with Denialism" (https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/02/25/learning-live-denialists/)

From Tom's comment:

"Here’s how this argument tends to play out:

The temps have been rising. OK.
Man has been emitting lots of CO2. OK.
Some of this temp rise is due to CO2. OK.
Clean energy R & D is a good idea. OK.

Here’s where the wheels fall off:

The climate sensitivity is not well defined. DENIER!
Extreme events haven’t actually gotten worse yet. DENIER!
Your suggested policy will only lower future global temperature increases by a fraction. DENIER!
China, India, and the developing world is key to keeping a lid on future emissions. DENIER!
Economics should be a high priority when designing a solution. DENIER!
Fracking is a good thing, better than coal by half. DENIER!
We should wait until the science is better defined and outcomes are more certain. DENIER!
It might be wiser/cheaper to adapt instead of attempt to mitigate which looks hopeless on a global scale. DENIER!
UN Global Climate Treaty looks unworkable. DENIER!
If the US acts alone, it won’t be effective. DENIER!
Nuclear power is the best solution we have now. DENIER!
Putting expensive intermittent subsidized power into production is a bad idea. DENIER!
The world simply isn’t going to give up cheap energy based on the uncertainty of outcomes in climate science. DENIER!
The science actually says catastrophic outcomes are low probability. DENIER!
I think estimates on large extinction rates are overstated. DENIER!
We can’t get work done if we all drive a Prius. DENIER!
Polar bears are…DENIER! DENIER! DENIER!
Climategate…Aaaaaaaaaagggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!"

Mar 7, 2014 at 8:51 PM | David44

The link he gave Discover Magazine article by Keith Kloor
: Learning to Live with Denialism

The "shouting Denier fallacy"
- if you shout "denier" then what you are saying has automatically become unscientific.

Some people liked it so, I'll quoted myself from2014/2/21/throwing-the-mud-back.html

The use of the word Climate Denier is NOT compatible with science. It is not a scientific word !
- let me run that thru (short version)
In science you define your terms precisely :
A denier is someone who lies about a fact they know to be true.
(Climate institutions predictions of future climate are just opinions not VALIDATED science.)
You are not a denier if you just disagree with someone's unproven opinion, no matter how informed they are
(e.g. If I disagree with Stalin that "communism is the best system" I am not denying)

- Note how someone who uses the words "climate denier" is throwing the scientific method in the garbage.
It's a kind of Turing Test - If someone uses that term then they are not being a scientist in that moment.