The definition they use is so incredibly broad as to mean anything. If you think man-made climate change is real but doesn’t take a higher priority than the activities causing climate change, you’re a climate denier. If you think man-made climate change is real but aren’t sure that natural disasters are increasing in frequency or severity because of that, you’re a climate denier. Both of these types of people believe in man-made climate change yet are said to deny it.
Does that even make sense? This article is trying to drive a wedge between people and foment hate, as is anyone using the term “climate denier”, whether they know it or not. It’s not productive.
The readers of this article could be talking to people, learning their nuanced views, exchanging ideas, and finding common ground with the so-called “climate deniers”, but instead they’re reading a hit piece that makes them think Republicans are going to cause the literal end of the world.
> If you think man-made climate change is real but doesn’t take a higher priority than the activities causing climate change, you’re a climate denier.
If you think climate change is real, but don’t care, because of the economy—then yes, you’re a climate change denier.
> If you think man-made climate change is real but aren’t sure that natural disasters are increasing in frequency or severity because of that, you’re a climate denier.
If you think climate change is real, but isn’t having deeply unpleasant effects—then yeah, you’re a climate change denier.
There’s plenty of room for nuance and distinctions within climate change beliefs, but these positions ain’t it, chief.
>If you think climate change is real, but don’t care, because of the economy—then yes, you’re a climate change denier.
That is literally a contradiction. Words, what do they mean?
The truth is, our society is inextricably bound to high energy activities that can only be met with fossil fuels at this time. Being hysterical about some speculative theories about what *might* happen decades from now is not helping. People need to work on steady and responsible development of solutions that make sense and don't involve destroying civilization as we know it. We need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, and only fossil fuels can work for common military operations (notwithstanding some huge technological improvement that we can't even theorize about yet).
Does that even make sense? This article is trying to drive a wedge between people and foment hate, as is anyone using the term “climate denier”, whether they know it or not. It’s not productive.
The readers of this article could be talking to people, learning their nuanced views, exchanging ideas, and finding common ground with the so-called “climate deniers”, but instead they’re reading a hit piece that makes them think Republicans are going to cause the literal end of the world.