Deniers don't like to be labelled deniers. It makes them squirm and wriggle. They feign offence when someone writes that they are sick and tired of climate science deniers bagging scientists and peddling disinformation. The are quite comfortable with the accusation they are bagging scientists and peddling disinformation, but they object to being called a denier.
Political correctness denier-style
For example, Bob Bolder, while proclaiming to one and all about how he rejects climate science and all evidence on which it's based, writes how he wants to disagree with a definition, but insists on changing the definition so that he can disagree with it:
July 18, 2014 at 12:47 pm
C Lang says “I would categorize a climate science denier as someone who dis-regards the peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change.”
Who disregards, we disagree there is a huge difference.
Debating the conclusions is not denial its science, peer review does establish something as fact it establishes something as worth of debate and investigation. AGW is a theory that is being put forth to explain observations in nature. Almost no one here dismisses anything out of hand they investigate the data and the conclusions and challenge the results and the evidence is more and more on the this side of the debate anyway. AGW may prove out in the end but the models that the theory is based around and the conclusion derived there from clearly are at odds with observed fact.
I will and do listen to anything that AGW supporters say but more and more it is becoming dogma and not science and unfortunately the bias is all too obvious and this brings into question the motives of the these people and why they fear to be questioned and debated.
If you want to use labels on the subject choose balanced ones like Supporters of the theory and Non-supporters of the theory.
He prefers to be referred to as a "non-supporter of the theory". He likes euphemisms. He's striving for political correctness.
That's just one example. There are many more. It's weird, isn't it.
More denier word play
Then again, the average WUWT-er doesn't understand the difference between a prediction and a projection. For example, if I claim that tomorrow WUWT will post another denier article I'm making a prediction. If instead I said that, subject to the internet being alive and subject to Anthony sitting at his computer, he will post another denier article I'm creating a scenario. That's more like a projection than a prediction. If the requirements aren't met, then I reserve the right to change my claim.
IPCC projections are based on scenarios - or pathways as they are now. If we continue to burn fossil fuels as if they are going out of style, then certain things will happen - temperatures will rise by x degrees, sea level will increase by x metres over a specified time period etc. If we stop burning fossil fuels, then the projection is different.
A projection is like a prediction but has constraints. It's got "what-ifs" built in. Deniers don't like that because all they are interested in is trying to find fault with the science. If ice is melting faster than expected, then deniers can point to that fact and claim the science is wrong. AGW is happening even faster than the science predicted or projected. Well, that might be a bad example because I don't think I've seen any deniers use that particular argument. You get the point though.
Deniers think that using the word projections is a trick that scientists use so they can avoid saying they were wrong about something. But that's wrong. A projection can be wrong.
Twisted reasoning, warped thinking - How Interesting.
I'll leave you with this comment from AlexS, who says:
July 19, 2014 at 12:57 am
C Lang “I would categorize a climate science denier as someone who dis-regards the peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change.”
Ah… so Einstein was a Physics denier. That would been very helpful.
And funny how suddenly being judgmental started to be okay.
But i see that you follow Lysenkism.
For some weird reason he's equating one of the world's most famous physicists with climate science deniers, who haven't contributed a thing to the field of climate science.
Next he complains about a straightforward definition implying a value judgement and he seems to object to the definition on those grounds. Where is the logic? What is his reasoning? Is he trying to argue that a person who disregards peer-reviewed scientific literature when forming opinions about climate change is "not" denying the science? That somehow despite disregarding the peer-reviewed scientific literature they are actually taking it into account? Twisted thinking at its best.
The last two lines are good, too. It's judgemental to define as science deniers people who disregard science but it's not judgemental to accuse an individual of following "Lysenkism" (sic)?
I think "how interesting" would be the polite response, or perhaps "I hear what you say" :)