It has nothing to do with holocaust denial – and I would think.assuming so indicates some sort of persecution complex
It is a term to distinguish a genuine sceptic from someone who denies the conclusions of sound peer reviewed science.
Genuine sceptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views.
Lets get something straight – I simply accept the science. I would rather not but it is the rational thing to do. I am neither a ‘warmist’ nor a denier. If the Royal society (and all the credible national institutes and academies of science on the planet) conclude that climate change isn’t anthropogenic or isn’t the problem it claims it is then that is my position because I accept that they are in a far better position to determine the most likely than I. Unfortunately for us all they do not.
To assume form an unqualified position, which almost everyone is, including those who reject aspects of anthropogenic global warming, that the science is flawed or unrepresentative of the science community is pushing the bounds of scepticism into denial.