I don't think "climate denier" is appropriate for your referent population. People who accept anthropogenic global warming but don't think it's something to _worry_ about are not denying AGW. Perhaps you could call them effect/outcome deniers. What they're denying is any need to act, given AGW is real. Or perhaps they think any actions we take will have little effect anyway ... which would warrant the name AGW fatalists.
Similarly, those of us "lazy binders" who will worry about adapting after the big one hits are not denying that it will happen or that it will be devastating. But what's the sense in worrying if you and everyone you know is likely to die in the event anyway? Or, similarly, if you have enough faith in your own adaptability and resourcefulness (however misguided that is), then you'll take the events as they come and worry about it then. Or, perhaps you have faith in FEMA or local organizations to help us when it happens? Everyone's different. But these people are very different from those who deny the inductive evidence entirely. On 05/18/2017 08:41 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > The second is entirely my own, and is, in fact, a left-over from a > conversation we were having last week: > > Some people think that global warming, coastal flooding, etc., is not > something to worry about and “we”call those people “climate deniers”. “We” > have many friends, relatives, and financial commitments in the Bay Area of > California, in Seattle and in the Los Angeles basin, where at least one very > severe earthquake is very likely in the next 20 years. Are “we” tectonics > deniers? -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
