The difference between scepticism and denialism:

1. Sceptics are people who don’t take things at face value; they demand facts, and are ready to change opinions based on the weight of evidence, even if that goes against personal preferences or beliefs.

2. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept evidence that conflicts with their personal beliefs, desires or ideology. People in denial gather reasons and excuses, however flimsy, that allow them to not believe in whatever unwelcome truth they’re trying to avoid.

Examples of 1

Most but not all scientists, doctors, crime investigators and similar people involved in research.

Examples of 2.

People who deny the Holocaust, moon landing, that the sun rises in the east.

Loaded or rhetorical questions are those which contain a controversial assumption such as a presumption of guilt.

Examples include:

"Have you stopped beating your wife."

and OLO's own recent contribution:

"Can climate change be defended without trickery and strong rhetoric?"

Hoping this is of help to the gentle reader.

Dear Graham,

Thank You for that information.

Dear mjpb,

I can't better Ammonite's definitions.
For me this thread has now run its course.
See you on another thread.

Ammonite,

Sorry to be slow but what you seem to be saying with your first two definitions doesn't seem to be what you mean to be arguing so maybe you could clarify.

The indications are that people with a scientific or mathematical bent are more likely to be skeptical about climate change. So are the "deniers" better described as skeptics?

From what I keep seeing people who believe in global warming appear to fit better into your denialist category. I refer to my earlier posts. I don't immediately accept that putting something cold in between a heat source and a heat camera proves that the cold gas has any particular property but that is apparently convincing to died in the wool climate change people.

You lump together loaded and rhetorical questions. What you describe appears to define a loaded question but not necessarily a rhetorical question in my understanding of the terms.

My question might be sound rhetorical or loaded but I am just responding to what I've seen. It is more of a frustrated question. I was hoping for something substantial from the pro-Climate change side. What I have seen prior to coming in here didn't necessarily represent the pick of the litter. There are a number of people who feel quite strongly that there is a human made climate change problem that requires urgent attention at great human cost. There must be some reason for that.

However instead I was pointed to trickery, called anti-science, and read derogatory labels thrown at the only side who seem to present meaningful facts. I would very much like it answered but Lexi has bowed out.

I apologise as I have not yet read all the posts and particularly not your own. An awful lot of links are included in this thread. Perhaps there is more in there than what I described. I'll keep at it.

mjpb

I sorry to see that you are having difficulties with a couple of simple definitions.

I suggest you read the following:

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

and

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I have already presented my opinions backed by reliable sources in preceding posts.

Therefore, adieu.

It wasn't so much simple definitions perse. It was just the fit of the facts in one because they seemed to run counter to your opinion as inferred from other posts and I always thought there was a difference between loaded and rhetorical questions.

Your definition only fitted my understanding of a loaded question so I was surprised. Also:

To me this is a loaded question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife."

To me this could sound like a rhetorical question:

"Can climate change be defended without trickery and strong rhetoric?

Since English is my first language I'd better read more on the issue so thanks for the links if they help.