If you were to ask Joe Romm, Jim Hansen, Bill McKibben, Al Gore, and some of the other hard core angry people who use this word daily, they’d probably say “no”. They think nothing of it, they’ve desensitized themselves to it and use it without even thinking about it any more. It’s a sad form of commentary.
But ask reasonable and rational people who don’t have anger and angst wound up in the climate change debate, and the answer is likely to be different.
Andrew Bolt has a disturbing piece on the use of the word by Australian PM Julia Gillard, who is so far the highest level government official to use the word as far as I know. He writes:
Six million Jews didn’t die so Combet could smear a sceptic
It is deliberate and it is grossly offensive – a foul smear acceptable only to the shameless:
The manager of opposition business Christopher Pyne said that after 11 years as chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group on Israel, he was offended by the form of words – which he likened to the term “Holocaust denier”.
Amid uproar in the House of Representatives, Mr Pyne asked the Prime Minister to withdraw the comment…
“We know that she is trying to allude to the Holocaust. It is offensive and it must stop”.
Speaker Harry Jenkins refused to accept the basis of the complaint.
…
But while Abbott shows the appropriate sensitivity, Combet insists on appropriating the horror of a genocide to make his cheap political smear:
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott accepted the Speaker’s judgment but placed on the record that he found the term “climate change denier” offensive and untruthful.
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet was undeterred by the opposition’s sensitivity to the term.
“When you stop denying the climate science, we’ll stop calling you a denier. That’s the fact of the matter,” he told parliament.
Combet should realise that people with a historical memory and a love of reason find his language contemptible.
==============================================================
Read Bolt’s piece here.
For our Australian readers, you can take ABC’s poll here if you wish.
==============================================================
In other news:
TONY Abbott will address a rally of climate sceptics in Canberra today as the Opposition tries to defend Labor accusations that it is a party of climate change deniers.
Strongly supported by right-wing shock jocks, the rally is expected to hear from a range of voices questioning the scientific evidence for climate change.
Scores of buses, filled with opponents of the planned tax, are heading to Canberra for a rally outside Parliament House this morning.
…
The Opposition Leader is expected to address the Canberra rally and yesterday renewed his attack on the Prime Minister’s pre-election promise not to introduce the tax.
He told parliament the PM suffers from truth deficit disorder and is clocking up frequent liar miles.
Godspeed to our friends in Australia, may the light soon shine for you.
h/t to Tom Nelson and to WUWT reader Michael R
UPDATE: ABC Closed the poll within about two hours of it being mentioned on WUWT, voting is no longer allowed.
““When you stop denying the climate science, we’ll stop calling you a denier. That’s the fact of the matter,” he told parliament.”
How about, “When you stop hawking junk science as “climate science” and describe real science, we will stop denying what you say”?
We are “climate change realists.” The warmist whining bedwetters are best called Chicken Littles.
The climate is always changing and any human influence from CO2 is undetectable (lifted from the science of the IPCC AR4, not the propagandized Summary for Policymakers).
No more offensive than “climate change shill” or “climate change huckster,” though somewhat less accurate.
I’ve probably been a left leaning Australian voter most of my life. However all the recent actions of Gillard’s Gang mean that Labor won’t be getting my vote for a long while. Trouble is that most of the current crop of Aussie politicians just simply aren’t worth voting for, with the drivel that they are continually coming out with. Personally I think they have adopted too many of the USA political “standards” – but that’s life in the fast lane I guess.
So People, click on the “yes its offensive” button and lets reverse the voting trend.
It is offensive for the historical connection.
It is wrong because almost everyone accepts that climate changes.
It is stupid because it mis-directs reasonable discussion about the science.
It is contemptible because serious problems are being sidetracked.
It is . . . the list is long
The dogmatic catastrophist oppressors certainly won’t mind if we choose a label for their zealous aggressions then.
they’ve desensitized themselves to it
Or they know what it means and use it intentionally.
The “Climate Change” religious faith is so strong that people are willing to equate the slaughter of millions of human beings to a meager question of data and it’s correct interpretation. This is a truly fascinating phenomenon and we should keep in mind the gullibility of people and the historical dangers of “true believers”. It’s ironic that Adolph Hitler, with a little help from his friends, made true believers out of the German people and they allowed an actual Holocaust to occur. Yet, the current incarnation of true believers in climate change use the previous disaster and associated deadly rhetoric to attack their victims. There’s a lesson to be learned here.
“When you stop denying the climate science, we’ll stop calling you a denier. That’s the fact of the matter,” he told parliament.”…
When Romm (and others) stop denying EVERYTHING that does not fit in their tidy hypothesis/speculations (Humans are over-heating, I think then we will stop calling them deniers 😉
There is a vigorous Carbon Tax debate at the moment both inside and outside the parliament.
It seems to me that the Labor government would much prefer not to talk about the ‘scientific’ reasons for a carbon tax, but about reducing energy consumption and compansating the poor, reducing government deficit, funding social programs, etc.
On the other hand, the Liberal/National opposition is focusing on whether there is a ‘scientific’ justification for a tax. This being politics, some government ministers are throwing around the phrase ‘climate denier’, and the opposition is miffed.
For many climate skeptics (excluding me) the bad news is that the tax is likely to be introduced. As for the good news, it looks like the government doesn’t actually believe that climate change is big deal.
What I find surprising is how well-informed Aussie politicians are about climate change debate. What I don’t find surprising is that many Aussie politicans appear to be familiar with the debates in WUWT and Bishop Hill and skeptical other blogs.
Sorry to offer a contrary view, but this is a cultural issue. In Australia, the word ‘denier’ does not have the strong connotation of ‘Holocaust Denier’. For most Australians, I would suspect that the word ‘denier’ is used in the way that Combet used it – in denying whatever it is is being suggested.
That’s obviously not true amongst the Australia Jewish community, and I respect the views of those who find the phrase offensive, but as an Australian who used to be a believer in AGW but now consider myself a skeptic, I don’t find the phrase ‘Climate Change Denier’ offensive. Annoying and inaccurate, yes, but not offensive. I just don’t have a cultural background that links the word ‘Denier’ to the Holocaust Denier phenomenon (which I don’t believe has ever been particular prevalent in Australia).
Because the Internet is International, I prefer to avoid using potentially offensive phrases, but I don’t believe that other cultures should be allowed to impose their constraints across the world. It’s different when Australians are communicating with citizens of other countries where it is just common courtesy to avoid using words and phrases that they would find offensive, but if, culturally, we don’t find a word or phrase offensive, why should we avoid using it amongst ourselves?
Out of deference to those who find the word offensive, I’m not voting in that poll, because if I did vote, I would have to vote “no” as I don’t personally find it offensive.
I’m afraid voting yes on the ABC’s puter controlled poll will have about as much affect in the positive as we have in the overall temperature of this planet.
It is an offensive term and is used deliberately for It’s connotations with holocaust denial, we get it.
All we have is bedwetter, watermellon and snip and snip oh and Gillard.
Amino Acids is spot on – They know what it means and use it intentionally.
Our PM, Julia(r) Gillard, annoys me for several reasons:
1. claiming the anti-AGW proponents are ‘deniers’. I don’t automatically associate this with the Holocaust but it is an incorrect label – most anti-AGW proponents would agree that the climate changes, it’s just the cause that is being debated.
2. Her “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” statement prior to the last election has not been satisfactorily handled. If politicians are allowed to make such blatant mis-representations in order to gain our vote how can we believe anything they say at any time (although not believing politicians is probably ingrained in the Oz psyche already). This issue needs to be addressed by all levels of Government.
3. She constantly states that there needs to be a price placed on carbon (dioxide) so that the business community has certainty.
a. the business community thought they had certainty prior to the election when she claimed there would not be a tax which she then undermined. Now, no-one knows what is going to occur as she is a proven liar.
b. a $0 price on carbon would give as much or more certainty to businesses.
4. She claims that Tony Abbott is using scare tactics every time he uses the term ‘another great, big tax”. The major premise for introducing any carbon price/ETS/CPRS/etc is scary scenarios put forward by the pro-AGW warmistas, none of which have occurred to the degree they claim (the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age so we should have seen hundreds of years of increasing disasters).
The Greens also stated pre-election that they wished to establish ‘truth in politics’ in that they wanted promises made by all political parties to be delivered. Once the Greens found they had the balance of power they forced Julia(r) to reverse her ‘no carbon tax’ promise, diametrically opposite to their own political advertising.
It appears hypocrisy is more highly valued than ethics in politics in Australia at the moment.
on an australian commercial tv station news update last nite:
(paraphrasing) ‘controversy in the parliament when “climate change doubters” were called “climate change deniers”.’
no way will the MSM (much less politicians of any stripe) ever mention the words “MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING”!
now we have one of our most senior journalists writing about “climate deniers”!!!!!
23 March: The Age, Australia: Michelle Grattan: Labor tries to tie Abbott to deniers
TONY Abbott will risk being linked to prominent climate deniers by addressing an anti-carbon tax rally outside Parliament today…
http://www.theage.com.au/national/labor-tries-to-tie-abbott-to-deniers-20110322-1c56l.html
it’s beyond farcical, and tragic for the future of politics, the media and science.
I wish WE could get together on the terminology.
I have been doing my voice-in-the-wilderness thing for some time–I caqn even get anybody to tell me that I am wrong. (I don’t think I am.)
Of course the climate is changing. Who on God’s Green Earth deny that!
And some of the local climate change is man made–viz the San Joaquin Valley in my lifetime–salty dead land to wheat to cotton to trees and now back (I hear–have not been there in years) back to salty dead land–hot and dry to tule fogs and back.
The climate globally is also changing and who could possibly deny it?
But the effect of man on the global change is pretty small, both as a driver, and as a retarder.
And I’m here to tell you warm is historically connected with plenty, cold with famine.
No more offensive than “climate change shill” or “climate change huckster,” though somewhat less accurate.
It is more offensive because of the connotations. Shilling doesn’t come within a mile of genocide in the scale of horrors.
The equivalent in reverse is “climate change Nazi”. I hope we can agree not to call them that.
What is really interesting is that – at time of writing – the vote is 42/58 against, which is remarkably small margin for an ABC web site.
I used to not really care (“sticks and stones may break my bones…”), but I’ve taken a far harder line since, I suppose, I really thought it through. The unmitigated gall of comparing a discussion of the possible future consequences of an opinion with an attempt to obliterate history finally got me I guess.
Wait for the spin which tells us that the vote was rigged by all those deniers/shills of big oil. I give it 24 hours max.
As an Aussie, I really thought that Gillard would be a huge step up from what we had. I was very wrong.
If it weren’t offensive, they wouldn’t use it.
I’ve said before that the reply ought to be using the term “extremist” or “apostle” or “zealot” or “fanatic”.. there are a lot of words that could be used.
how about.
“CO2 Jihadist”, “CO2 control freak” , “denier of plant life”
come on guys, your turn 🙂
The phrase is primarily upside down because it’s really the global warming fearmongers who deny that the climate has always been changing. It’s also offensive because of the holocaust analogy.
What’s offensive is that 57% of the respondents at this moment answered that it was not offensive. The atmosphere in Australia has to be very bad – but it’s not only there.
It is an inaccurate definition, since we ‘deniers’ are not the ones who deny climate change nor the existence of climate. It is the climate alarmists who are denying natural climate change therefore they should be the ones called ‘climate change deniers’.
I am a denier.
I deny that the sun goes around the earth, despite the “consensus” of scientists who say (said) that it does not.
I deny that the earth is flat, despit the consensus view that existed for a long time (admitadly, only amoung the uneduceted, which appear to be on the rise again by the evidence of the anti-nuclear hysteria).
And I deny AGW because I have dared to actually look at the evidence for and against it.
Denial of this kind is called “the scientific method”. Failure to be a denialist is to be anti science.
In a world where people panic while recieving a lot less and a banana equivilent dose however, who cares any more about science? Who would even know what it is anymore?
It used to be that there was a sucker born every minute, now, we can actually educate them to be suckers en mass. This makes things a lot easier…
I thought Climategate would end this rubbish.. but now it’s getting worse.
“Ms Gillard told parliament she would not be swayed from putting a price on carbon, and declined to rule out launching an advertising campaign to educate the public on climate change”
– Shepparton News 23 March 2011
She wants to educate us!!
If it wasn’t so insane.. it would be funny.
My son came home from school the other day and told me that for Religious Education he had to watch Gore’s Inconvienient Truth movie. He said he and other class members had complained but the teacher didn’t want to talk about it. She just wanted to present the curriculum the way she is supposed to.. I kept my boy at home the day they showed the movie.
We certainly have some challenges ahead.
Its actually a very badly worded question
All the ‘CO2 Jihadists’ will say that “denier” is ok,
but also many on the ‘Reality’ side of the argument may not find it offensive either.
The fact that it applies more to the ‘CO2 Jihadist’ camp than the ‘natural climate variability’ camp is also made in the posts above.
I don’t fund the term “climate change denier” to be much more offensive (although much more common) than “climate change hysteric.”