I hate the term “denier”. Just because I don’t believe in years of science and evidence and a huge amount of work done by scientists doesn’t make me a denier. I don’t deny the stuff posted on Watts Up With That. Nor do I deny the scientifically accurate stuff published by Lord Monckton and the Heartland Institute. So you see Phil, it is only your prejudice that sees me as a “denier”.
I think the burden of proof is on those so called “scientists” to prove that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

I call Poe.

“Is it dangerous? As far as I can see, the answer is quite clearly NO.”

This page on denial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial) shows the symptoms; amongst them being minimisation – admit the fact but deny its seriousness. Which is what Undeniable appears to be doing when he states that AGW isn’t a danger.

I still find your use of the term “denier” to be factually incorrect,

And you’re still wrong about this.

counter-productive and offensive.

A denier has already decided not to pay attention to the preponderance of evidence, and to maintain doubt beyond the point at which doubt ceases to be reasonable, so how exactly can the use of the term be counter-productive?

And if you find it offensive, well, tough. I find it offensive that there are millions of people in the US and elsewhere who deny the reality of biological evolution, but that alone won’t change anyone’s mind.

So, are you going to assemble some kind of argument to support your whiny assertions this time, or merely continue to whine?

You say that people “infer far more out of that word than I imply. This might help”, linking to a post which includes:

“A lot of them complain because they say the word denial puts them in the same bin as holocaust deniers. That’s too bad. But the thing is, they do have something in common: a denial of evidence and of scientific consensus.”

“That’s too bad” Oh really? Actually that does not help at all. I still find your use of the term “denier” to be factually incorrect, counter-productive and offensive.

PS: Just read about the article in Science in which deniers – sorry! – scientists have discovered that there was 50% less ice in the arctic 5000 years ago than there is now.

PPS: Otherwise good blog.

I just want to say thanks. You are by far my most favorite internet person. I always enjoy reading your blog. It’s become a daily habit.

.. and a very addictive one at that!

Well said & seconded by me.

@55. PayasYouStargaze : Keep doing what you do!

Same applies for that ..

@39. Jake : Don’t change a thing.

.. and, ditto, that too.

Thanks BA. I love your blog.

Actually I’ve been absent for a while due to illness, so I kind of feel like this post is welcoming me back personally. And I *have* been on a BA withdrawal all this time. Nice to be back.

I recently directed a park ranger from Cedar Breaks National Monument to this site, due to it. She gave an awesome campfire talk on “Constellation Myths” which included a slide entitled Pareidolia, complete with the toasted cheese sandwich, Hoagland’s Face on Mars, and other usual suspects. (BTW, I’ve never seen a laptop and digital projector plugged into a log before.)

I think that this entry needs a sticky at the top of the page some how. A button “new readers, click here,” perhaps.

BUT, I gotta ask… When are you going to go on the Nerdist Podcast? You mentioned Chris on the Geeky Pleasures Radio Show and he mentioned you and read your question during the Nathon Fillion interview. When are you going on?

Some of us download these pictures compulsively, you know.

Dr. Phil Plait,

On your advice, I rented Space:1999 beginning with episode 1. My family and I then sat through the entire DVD with our mouths gaping, unable to restrain the popcorn in our mouths. We were dumbstruck and confused.

Does this mean that I should end my fledgling career in science? Are such shows shibboleths, meant to identify those of us incapable of appreciating some subtlety?

I’m glad the math was straight forward, the coffee hasn’t reached the brain yet.

Ethyachk, i think you will find that this photo is a bit more disturbing.

Gee, thanks for bringing _that_ image back to my consciousness. I thought I had burned every copy of it, but now it’s back.

You have the wrong word in scare quotes. In this phrase, alternative holds its correct meaning, it’s the word “medicine” that in this context diverges from its true definition.

PHIL: I think you should make a blog post about this, like P.Z. did. After all, you’ve been one of Mabus’ targets for a while, haven’t you?