[robxorb]

Well I'll be proudly labelled a "_____ denier" denier.

This pejorative term does nothing for anyone making any argument. It weakens your position because you're attempting to rely on emotions and psychology to make your case instead of... well, making your case!

It predictably has the reverse effect of your intention. Those who disbelieve you strengthen in their resolve because now not only do they disagree with you on a factual basis, but they also believe themselves to have been unfairly characterised in a pejorative way for their position. Dumb move, you had one obstacle, now you're made yourself have two.

If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?

To me it's primitive and ineffective behaviour, and I lose respect for those who resort to it.

[tapoxi]

Religions are a matter of faith, climate change has overwhelming scientific evidence.

If you don't call those people deniers, then you're signaling to third parties it's some sort of unanswered question.

[mysterydip]

The unanswered question in some peoples' minds is the cause, not the effect. Like if you called people "forest fire deniers" for questioning whether it was arson or not.

[acdha]

> If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?

We could ask both of them to scientifically prove their faith and we’ll go with the successful one?

That’s facetious, of course, but it illustrates why this isn’t a valid comparison: religious faith is by definition dealing with things which cannot be measured scientifically while human-caused climate change has been the scientific consensus for half a century and has been rigorously tested using a wide variety of independent lines of evidence. Saying someone is denying that is valid because it’s a testable claim which can be rationally examined and independently confirmed, whereas a personal religious statement cannot because the successful religions in the modern era have evolved not to make claims which can be evaluated scientifically.

[robxorb]

Why don't we call people who believe the earth is flat (with their own science that they think backs it up) "round-earth deniers"?

Do you think that would help or hinder the situation if we did?

[holsta]

This type of response is called tone policing, which is often used against feminism or anti-racism advocates, who insist people use nice language while they are being denied basic existence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing

We've tried raw science and data for more than 100 years when the oil industry correctly predicted our current levels of CO2, and then kept doing business as usual. We knew something was up around 1821, and had a firm grasp of the situation by 1861 (one eight six one):

https://daily.jstor.org/how-19th-century-scientists-predicte...

If you make money by risking the lives of my family, I'm done being polite.

[anon373839]

This type of response is called “disingenuous”.

[ceejayoz]

> If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?

They'd probably laugh a bit; Muslims consider Jesus to be a legitimate prophet, just not the last.

That aside, religious stuff like "was Jesus the Messiah?" isn't quite the same as "is climate change happening". Some of the fervor around it may be religious-like, but the core facts are... facts.

[voidUpdate]

What term would you propose we use instead of climate change denier?

[cwillu]

Stop trying to lump a heterogenous collection of people with various views, opinions and concerns into a single term whereby you can conveniently dismiss them.

[archagon]

If people refuse to listen to decades of scientific consensus, I see nothing wrong with turning to classic shaming at some point.

[robxorb]

"Classic shaming" always having been an effective method of...?

It may make you feel better, but it doesn't work. It's right there at the beginning of cycles of dysfunction, because it is that: dysfunctional.

[loudmax]

Frankly, the belief that massive increases in fossil fuel emissions have no appreciable impact on the Earth's climate is risible. People have a right to believe what they want, but we also have a right to ridicule and deride people for holding delusional beliefs.

Mainstream beliefs should be able to stand up to scrutiny and you're allowed to challenge them. But your challenge should have some basis in reality. If you constantly deny decades of accumulated evidence because it's mainstream orthodoxy, you're going to find yourself aligning with the flat-earthers and holocaust deniers.