Difference(s) between Skepticism and Denialism
I showed this to a friend and he liked it so much that I thought I'd run it up the flagpole here.
An important distinction between intellectually honest skepticism with regards to scientific claims vs sheer denialism: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2010/05/skepticism-vs-denialism/
"Scepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn out to be false. Weeding out the few kernels of wheat from the large pile of chaff requires extensive observation, careful experimentation and cautious inference. Science is scepticism and good scientists are sceptical.
Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it – sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact..."
Thoughts welcomed.
= new reply since forum marked as read
As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title “skeptic.”...
More: http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics
Also, welcome to DU!
And thanks for the welcome! 
Oh, yeah, there's also, 'That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.' (Paraphrase. Hitchens, iirc.)