I do appreciate that for some, the word “denier” triggers a highly emotive response, apparently based on associations with Holocaust denial. Personally, I deeply object to the words “denial” and “denier”, applicable to many situations, being reserved solely for those few odious characters who engage in rewriting WWII history.

There have been several major examples in recent years of dangerous and damaging denial of overwhelming scientific evidence: the most prominent, perhaps, being HIV denial, where Thabo Mbeki and friends have, by virtue of supporting a position which wilfully ignored the massive evidence that HIV causes AIDS, effectively killed millions over recent years and coming decades. Tobacco denial – the denial of the overwhelming evidence that tobacco causes cancer – likewise delayed action to limit tobacco’s impact and likewise killed millions. The denial of the basic conclusions of climate science looks likely to have consequences even more serious than those examples.

Anyway, given that some find the term offensive, and apparently refuse to engage in discussion as a result, the word “contrarian” may be suitable alternative: one who takes a position contrary to the mainstream view.

‘Climate deniers’? Literary and academic credibility thereafter = 0. Swooping stereotyping and what can only be perceived as name-calling simply aren’t the hallmarks of any individual of a cognitive propensity.

Neuronal collisions of no particular consequence? I couldn’t have said it better myself. They’re of very little consequence indeed.