It is such an interesting term. It suggests that there is only one, proper, way to look at something. Anything else is just wrong. So yes, I find it nothing less than manipulative. A conversation stopper so to speak. It is not an intelligent argument so you know when you encounter it, that you are dealing with someone who has no argument to make and must resort to manipulation techniques, and will likely be combined with a few other popular manipulative techniques.
- There is no proof that CO2 is affecting temperature in any way that is measurable. Just the opposite is true, temperature affects CO2 levels and always has.
- Fossil fuels are extremely beneficial to mankind by providing cheap and easily transported energy.
- The third world wants what the first world has, and rightly so, and that was all possible by having cheap, plentiful energy.
- CO2 is extremely beneficial to the plant kingdom as it is one of two key component in photo synthesis.
- Climate change is not an environmental issue. Climate is just the accumulation of weather which is things like temperature, humidity, rainfall, snowfall, drought, wind etc. Environment is something that can be affected by humans, same with biodiversity but these are different issues.
Scientific skepticism concerns testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to systematic investigation using the scientific method, to discover empirical evidence for them. Treating this very valuable process for truth seeking as denialism, is an attempt to discredit any questioning of the validity of the claims being made by the alarmists – those that believe all climate change is caused by humans, through the burning of fossil fuels and is imperiling the planet. When you take away someones ability to provide countering argumentation, you strip them of their ability to fight back and so you make it very easy to control them.