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.”
Don’t give the ABC traffic. If I ever want a deluded extream left opinion on something I visit the ABC site. Otherwise I keep well away.
I deny that getting rid of the MWP is science.
I deny that the hockey stick is science.
I deny that refusing to release data and code for published papers is science.
I deny that gaming the peer review system is ethical.
I deny that blocking skeptical papers from publication is ethical.
I deny that hiding the decline is in any way ethical.
I deny that the past 10 years of temperature flatlining is consistent with GCM’s.
I deny that AGW proponents’ use of ad hominem arguments is consistent with having the facts on their side.
I deny that the 10-10 video is anything but evil.
I deny that the mainstream media are fair, even-handed, or unbiased.
I deny that Cancun was about anything other than wealth confiscation and redistribution.
“The equivalent in reverse is “climate change Nazi”. I hope we can agree not to call them that.”
Why? The AGW crowd realise that, in a world of anti nuclear hysteria, an appeal to reason is not what is needed, merely an appeal to emotion. They use the word “denier” to do exactly that.
And what is a nazi? Well, the AGW crowd wish to use AGW to assume total control over all industry without actually owning it, this system is called facism, sound familiar? They wish to use AGW to usher in socialism (since the word “communist” is now verboten), you know, like the German National SOCIALIST Party, which we now call Nazi. So if they talk about climate change and are using it to bring about facism, and are more and more using the tactics of nazies, such as first demonizing the opposition, then ramming regulations on practically everyone and everything through without benefite of democraticly created laws (such as through the US EPA) and thus acting like dictators, why shouln’t we call them that. That is, by definition, what they are.
People who are ‘denialists” (scientifically minded) need to understand that the great mass of people out there have been show to NOT be scientifically minded. An appeal to their reason will not work. What is needed is to do exactly what the AGW crowd is doing, take the actual facts and couch them in suitable emotional language (and pictures and music etc). How hard should it be to do propaganda when what you are propagandising is the truth, one that people can see all around them?
The best propaganda would probably be to turn the whole AGW crowd into the laughingstock of the world. Considering the number of screwups this crowd has done and continue to do, how hard could that be? Make “denialism” show you as brave, anti establishment (always popular with the young crowd), a free thinker, one who doesn’t just go along with the crowd. Associate “consensus” with a herd of stupid looking cattle (or sheep, which can be fleeced), preferably one that can be made to stampede easily (the anti nuclear hysteria shows it to be true anyway). Make denialism popular, something you WANT to be called, and “consensus” a sign of weakness and stupidity (which it is).
In short, stop trying to appeal to peoples reason, and start trying to appeal to their emotions. It works for the AGW crowd, how much easier should it work when you have the truth? Just look at the anti nuclear hysteria out there, do you really think reason will work with those people?
The term,”climate change denier”, is not only meaningless except in a political sense, but is also a double-edged sword. There has been a succession of 3 coolish years in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere is beginning to show signs of cooling as well. Another couple of similar years and “climate change denier” will be applied to a different group of people.
On the topic of offensive terms, it appears one politician put the protestors in the same category as the Ku Klux Klan:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/9057921/1000-rally-against-carbon-tax-in-canberra/
and directly
http://twitter.com/SteveGibbonsMP
http://www.stevegibbonsmp.com/
The phrase as used by the AGW lobby is designed to be abusive and a form of bullying.
Apart from the Holocaust connection it is not only offensive but grossly incorrect because no sceptic I know of denies natural climate change. The term “climate change deniers” more correctly describes the position of “believers” in the AGW religion!
The blatantly Left-wing ABC poll has only attracted 3688 votes which says a lot about the low esteem of the site in the eyes of most Australians.
It is currently running : Yes, it is offensive – 44% : No, it is not offensive – 56%.
What is far more significant is the MSN poll: Are you in favour of a Carbon Tax?
Currently running at Yes – 15,258 votes
No – 75,934 votes
Total votes 91,192
When I saw the story I had this lovely warm feeling as for the first time a tip I put in made tha page! Did Dr Burns beat me to it ? 🙁
REPLY: One minute apart, I conflated the two in the lines, I’ll add you to the h/t – Anthony
What’s telling about the ABC Poll results is that they are reflective of those who visit it: left-wingers
We are the Climate Change Moderates, they are the Climate Change Extremists . . . .
In the US it is the red counties that feed themselves and the blue counties, and it is the blue counties that make this a detestable activity. I don’t see it going on at this rate forever. Not even in Oz where cow poo is grounds for destroying a family’s livelihood. My interest in seeing Oz once before the long sleep descends upon me is waning. Life is too short to spend it in a blue funk.
Gillard is just blustering and refusing to answer Abbott’s perfectly valid question:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/23/3171775.htm?section=justin
“He told parliament the PM suffers from truth deficit disorder and is clocking up frequent liar miles.”
Got to love Abbott’s way with words!
I like the word denier for people who claim that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses don’t cause a greenhouse effect.
It gets across the point that their position is both unscientific and contemptible.
Mostly natural or mostly by man.
Sounds like the Nature v Nurture debate to me. I don’t think that was satisfactorily resolved over 100 years.
Hey Grumpy, wouldn’t it wonderful if Sydney or Melbourne got some snow, or at least a decent frost during winter.. That would be ‘Cool’ 🙂
KV, can you link to that MSN poll please, I haven’t voted yet. and can’t find it. Thanks.
The day the carbon tax is imposed on us, I will phone my energy supplier and stop buying 25% renewable energy. I will also tell them why, and I will also recommend that anyone who also pays for renewable energy does the same.
I see no reason to pay twice for the same thing. I don’t even have the faintest shadow of a suspicion that this carbon tax will ever be seen by anyone trying to build a renewable energy infrastructure, so renewable energy will actually suffer from it. TS, I say. We have enough coal and gas to last a long while….
[snip -off color]
Denial is the refusal to accept an unequivocal fact. You cannot deny a hypothesis, you can only disagree with it.
The choice of the word ‘denier’ was no accident. The whole thing has been a political project and smearing the opposition is standard operating procedure. In the runup to Iraq they used ‘unpatriotic.’ In the old USSR they used ‘mental problems’ and now that’s popping up from the AGW attack dogs.
I’m expecting them to reach new lows for a while yet.
Anyone here from Israel? Does the Team use the term “Denier” in local debates?
Barnaby Joyce talking about defeating the proposed Australian carbon tax of the tax infatuated labor party…
“…We will win because if taxes cooled the planet, the place would already be an icebox…”
Regards
Michael
Luboš Motl says:
March 22, 2011 at 10:48 pm
I agree that that 57% that said it is NOT offensive is offensive (down to 54% now).
The thing is that the ABC attracts rusted -on left wing viewers, listeners and bloggers.
Take the result of recent polls…..
“Is the Prime Minister correct in ruling out nuclear power”? Yes 60% No 40%
“Should Australia wait and see on Climate Change”? Yes 40% No 60%
You get the picture, so if this poll can be turned around and opened up to more responders, then they may get out of their ivory tower.
I was watching parliament when Greg Combet introduced the ‘D’ word. He did this forcefully and deliberately in an attempt to bait the opposition and to test the speaker. That the speaker made a ruling in favour of allowing this disgraceful, derogatory term represented a dark day on our National Parliament.
Anthony, in case you didn’t notice there is an orchestrated campaign by the Labor Government to stifle all opposition to a carbon tax in Australia by branding them extremists, deniers, rednecks, tea party clones, the lunatic fringe and any other abusive title except some-one with a case that opposes the Government’s intention.
The deeply ingrained left leaning ABC will be at the forefront of this strategy.
This is despite the fact that Julia Gillard stole the election by deception having promised on national television just prior to the election that there would be no carbon tax under any government she would lead. She did not WIN the subsequent election even under those terms as the number of seats won by Labor and the Coalition was equal but Gillard was able to form a minority government with the aid of the Greens and 4 independent members.
There is no doubt in my mind that had she said she would be introducing a carbon tax within 6 months of forming a government, she would have been decimated by voters.
As far as the ABC is concerned, as some-one said above, you can ignore any ABC poll. If you look at any of them, the questions will normally be slanted and the results will always be out of kilter to the left with national polls on the same subject.
I have said before on this blog, Gillard is a cunning and talented speaker and politician. Unless something untoward happens, she knows she has two and a half years to persuade the population that a carbon tax will be good for the country. She is now stuck with it and will fight to the death for it. The biggest weapon she has at the moment is that any-one that opposes it is a “denier”.
The task for Tony Abbott will be to convince the people that he is not a “denier” and that he has a long range plan to adapt from fossil fuel to alternate energy that fits the world view and that will not damage the economy. Even if he has one, his problem is that he does not have the power to implement it.
There is indeed a group of people out there who keep insisting that winters are becoming as warm as summers.
Are they not climate change deniers?
I believe the one he is refering to is the one that sits below the headlines on ninemsn’s homepage – it changes from day to day depending on the topics in the news. If you go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/
and look directly below the picture (which is currently Charlie Sheen’s kiss) the question and the option to vote should be listed – “Do you support the carbon tax”.
Strange, I used the offensive word in another post and had my comment completely removed, which conveniently meant no one had to try and answer my valid points, as far as I can see the only ones trying to link it’s use (rather desperately) to the Holocaust are those who it is used against, the word itself is a clinical term first used by Freud in the 1920, long before the Holocaust. I use it and mean it in that context, I have a number of Jewish friends and I have asked them about this and they don’t seem to have any problem with it’s use or make any connection between the two totally unrelated issues.
The Poll in question is in a subset of the ABC site called ‘the Drum’ so only those interested in polls would go there and for all the talk of honesty on this site, amidst the name calling towards your opponents (which it’s not hard to notice don’t get deleted), I do like that this forum is trying to skew the results of this poll by getting it’s U.S. follows (a much larger country) to alter the results of this Australian Poll, while comments in this very thread accuse the ABC of fixing the results, that is just classic [insert word that can’t be used here]
It says a lot about what you think the result might be if you don’t ‘pump up’ the results.
There does not seem to be any restriction on the number of times an individual can vote.
Try it…
http://www.abc.net.au/thedrum/polls/
Hypochondria is a condition in which a person believes that he or she is ill when no objective signs of illness can be observed. It has an obsessive as well as a delusional component. Sufferers from hypochondria, or, to use the clinical term, hypochondriasis, remain convinced that they are ill despite reassurances, and often present themselves to their doctors over a long period of time as suffering from a series of different symptoms and diseases. The onset of hypochondria is frequently in the 30s in men and 40s in women. Those in sedentary occupations are notoriously liable to it, and, whilst medical students usually suffer only a transient bout of hypochondria, some doctors remain hypochondriacal throughout their career. Depression and alcoholism exacerbate the condition.
http://www.answers.com/topic/hypochondria
Climate Hypochondria is a condition in which a person believes that the world is ill when no objective signs of illness can be observed. It has an obsessive as well as a delusional component. Sufferers from climate hypochondria, or, to use the clinical term, climate hypochondriasis, remain convinced that the world is ill despite reassurances, and often present the world to others over a long period of time as suffering from a series of different symptoms and diseases. The onset of climate hypochondria is frequently in the 30s in men and 40s in women who have only a superficial understanding of the sciences. Those in sedentary occupations are notoriously liable to it, and, whilst some scientists usually suffer only a transient bout of climate hypochondria, some remain climate hypochondriacal throughout their career. Depression and alcoholism exacerbate the condition.
Personally, looking around at acquaintences and friends who tend to believe in AGW, it amazes me how easily they fit the overall description of hypochondriacs in general.
Name-calling doesn’t worry me.
However people who use the name certainly intend for it to be offensive.
Whenever anyone calls me a denier, I replying with a link to the ‘I’m a denier” youtube clip.
I just LOVE that clip.
Wombat says: “I like the word denier for people who claim that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses don’t cause a greenhouse effect.”
That hasn’t been proven, one way or the other. There is considerable evidence that the system may already be saturated due to water vapor, which is (1) a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and (2) present in much higher concentrations in most of the atmosphere than CO2. It’s quite possible that additional man-made CO2 has no net effect, especially given the negative feedback of most clouds.
The Earth’s climate system is a lot more complex than the simple radiative model. The recent cooling/flatlining satellite temperature, the falsified prediction of a tropical hotspot, Svensmark’s theory of cosmic rays and cloud formation, confirmation of Miskolszi’s theory by the drop in 300 mbar humidity, and the constant measured optical density of the atmosphere are all evidence of (at the very least) the science not being settled in this area, either. Climate computer models are not science.
I like the word ‘uninformed’ for people who believe otherwise.
“Climate Change Minister Greg Combet”
I hope you’re not paying him for that.
If he was the Climate Equilibrium Minister, then he might have something to do!
Nothing but semiotic trickery. And I think it is deliberate and preplanned.
They just closed the Poll at only 4025 votes counted and 54% No.
What are they afraid of?
It matters not if Australians want to play dumb about the implied connections to holocaust deniers, the term in relation to climate was framed in it’s full horrible implications on the international stage years ago:
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568
Offensive? Absolutly, there is another “N” word that is just as offensive to black people no matter where its used, and its only used to cause offense – the use of denier here is the same. Offensive, derogotory used by the type of person who thinks that they are right to the point those who disagree should be punished by whip or tax it makes no difference.
AndyG @12-02am
Link to MSN poll is http://ninemsn.com.au/?acid=iefvrt
One could be charitable and suggest that PM Gillard and her ministers do not know what they are saying. But this would be to say that they are rather reckless in throwing about such terms.
Let’s be quite clear where the term came from. As I wrote in Science and Public Policy, the link was quite deliberate in a ‘review’ of Lomborg’s book:
‘Pimm and Harvey also resorted to the tactic of likening Lomborg to a
Holocaust denier in pointing to the virtual nature of most of the species
supposedly becoming extinct annually:
“The text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men
aren’t dying of AIDS,that Jews weren’t singled out by the Nazis for extermina-
tion, and so on. ‘Name those who have died!’demands a hypothetical critic,who
then scorns the discrepancy between those few we know by name and the
unnamed millions we infer. ”
‘This is a fallacious argument.While any individual would be hard-pressed
to name more than a few Holocaust victims, the identities of the over-
whelming majority of them areknown, or were known by those who sur-
vived.They had lives,families,birth records,bank accounts,friends,and so
on.There is copious evidence that they existed and that they suffered at the
hands ofthe Nazis. With claims by Norman Myers or Edward Wilson that
40000 species supposedly become extinct every year, we have no strong
evidence that they exist, or that they have ever existed, or ceased to exist,
outside a mathematical model relating species and area.
‘What was more disconcerting was that IPCC Chairman Rajendra
Pachauri later likened Bjorn Lomborg to Adoph Hitler in the Danish news-
paper Jyllandsposten on 21 April 2004.’
After this, there was much discussion at sites like Grist as to whether ‘sceptic’ was a strong enough term, and many started using ‘denier’ quite deliberately to liken sceptics to Holocaust deniers.
The term is deeply offensive for this reason, especially to those of us who have family or friends who suffered in the Holocaust. I should add that I do not support censoring the likes of David Irving (I think his claims are readily falsifiable), but any attempt to liken anyone of a sceptical frame of mind to him is clearly seeking to silence dissent.
The poll is now closed, with No at 54%.
The page now says:
Sorry Australians, I don’ t know who (and what) that guy is. 🙂
Jace;
Actually, blacks use the “n” word on each other all the time. And Lindzen and I (amongst others) take pride in denying all the Hokey Team has to say, and thus accept the title
Denial isn’t the exclusive domain of the holocaust. I don’t think the phrase is offensive, but being lumped in with flat-earthers, birthers, truthers and moon landing conspiricy theorists is.
Using denier in a discussion is some form of Godwin’s law. It makes further discussion rather impossible. And that is exactly what the denier-sayers want, because “THE DEBATE IS OVER!”
But it isn’t. It is just that they don’t want to debate, because of the agenda hidden behind their (junk)science. They know they will lose that debate and with that will lose their possibility to achieve the REAL goals of their movement.
So we must keep fighting the denier-sayers and stick to the science, because one day their wall of being untouchable and their self-imposed moral supremacy WILL fall.
Re ABC closing the poll: nothing sinister, they have a new poll every 24 hours. But they definitively have a very soft-left, environmentally- and politically-correct bias, I’m almost always in the minority camp on their polls. I sent them this recently:
“Top centre on your “Big Ideas” main page is an outrageous statement: “With catastrophic climate change almost an inevitability, …” You can not possibly provide evidence to support this statement, and I challenge you to substantiate it or withdraw it.”
The Big Ideas editor responded promptly but unconvincingly, his influences are Clive Hamilton (a failed economist) and Tim Flannery, a paleontologist and Gaian beloved of the Government. I’ve had no reply to my more detailed critiques in response.
The insistence on the”denier” label is I think an indication of the trouble the Gillard government is in on this issue (among others). When you haven’t got a defensible case (proposing drastic measures which will be useless even if AGW is true), resort to name-calling.
Faustino,
Spot on. Those who resort to ad homs are tacitly admitting they are losing on reason and evidence.
When the ‘colourful’ Senator Barnaby Joyce asked Leader of the House and Minster for Infrastructure Albanese this morning on Sky News whether he considered Christy and Spencer to be ‘deniers’, Albanese admitted he did not know who they were. This is an argument from ignorance.
Jace: Thanks for the link to the time line.
“They just closed the Poll at only 4025 votes counted and 54% No.
What are they afraid of?”
Ans – Losing. The ABC does not like to have too much comment or voting after it has got the result it is after from the home fans.
Ans to who is Ricky Ponting? – Ricky Ponting is the the captain of the Australian cricket team presently playing the the 5o limited over World Cup in India and other countries in the sub continent. Tomorrow night they play India in the knock out phase of the comp. Ricky, a great captiain in the past, has been out of form so tomorrow is going to be a testing time as to whether he can refind form and possibly retain the World Cup for Australia. If not, good bye Ricky.
The Denier moniker was chosen for its offensiveness, and to disrespect and denigrate non believers. Warmers are every bit as dangerous as the Nazis they claim to despise.
What works beautifully is to turn this same tactic upon them. Ruthlessly. My descriptions of warmers run (typically) to – “Psychotic, deluded, religious zealot” Warmist professors are “Reverend” rather than Dr. and fellow believers are Brethren in the faith. Respect is explicitly, intentionally discarded. All are Komrades who drink the Koolaid, and this is not childish name calling AT ALL. It is both extremely effective in swaying public opinion and absolutely accurate. Humans are remarkably moved by the certainty with which you state your position. Your confidence instills confidence in your opinion, irrespective of your accuracy, and the Klimate Cult have been using this tactic very skillfully from the outset. It’s time we caught up.
This phenomenon is an amalgam of many things: Greed, Rent Seeking, Corruption, Political indoctrination, Malthusian obsessions and blind ignorance. But all of it is held together by guilt over consumption and imagined realities that can only be described as a Pantheistic Cult. A Cult it is, and a Cult I call it. By directing my attack at the actual issue ( a delusion) and questioning credibility, I can quote specifics readily, but don’t get mired in the details of the numerous arguments. This is a CRITICAL debate for the future of humanity. Condescending disrespect is a powerful tool. I won’t discard it. Winning is the only thing that matters.
The ABC are over paid brain dead left-wingers
I’m a big fan of the English language and all that has been achieved with it. I am, however, bugged by the way a new use for a word can make it difficult to use the word for it’s original purpose. I could once say that I was gay and everyone would lnow that I was happy and jolly. Now I’d create a very different idea.
I’m still happy to be called a denier. There are, after all, a lot of things which I deny, not least being that man’s CO2 emmissions are causing the climate to change. If anyone wants to call me a denier, bring it on. They’ll be the ones who look stupid when we start to freeze our [s/snip] off.
I understand the angst that some may feel about the word ‘denier’, but it really only shows how politically desperate Combet and Gillard have become.
These days I consider myself a proud member of the Denialati, victory will be ours and I can afford to be magnanimous in advance.
If a scientist questions AGW, they’re by definition in the pay of Big Oil and dismissed.
If a scientist agrees with AGW, they’re by definition noble and trustworthy.
You just can’t do that — it violates Reason and Democracy and Free Speech and Debate.
It is the mentality of the Dark Ages, where you just execute or exile anybody whose views you don’t like. The West got ahead because of reason and free speech, while the rest of the world remained behind. You won’t get into balance with nature by giving up reason — you need it more than ever. Desperately need reason.
That’s why “denialist” is offensive; it is offensive to reason and free speech, which are desperately needed to save the planet.
Educating the masses to do the right thing for the environment means encouraging them to question dogmas and to think for themselves. We need more reason, more critical thinking, more diverse views, more thoughtful questioning.
The greens now have their dogmas in a twist because after decades of claiming nuclear power was wrong and abhorrent, some are now trying to educate us that it is actually good. Well maybe if they hadn’t turned it into a dogma in the first place we could have been having this conversation 30 years ago.
You want a catchphrase?
DOGMA KILLS.
Those who believe that atmospheric CO2 levels are the main factor determining the earths climate are the “CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS”.
They are the ones who are in denial that the climate changes naturally as it always has and always will.
As for those who think that human emissions of less than 4 parts per million per year can warm the atmosphere in the slightest, there is no help for such people that I am aware of.
Denialisms exist, but not even Wikipedia thinks climate science is the right place to exemplify it from. “Climate change denier”, firstly, means “AGW denier”, and you don’t have to think of holocaust deniers. If temperatures would decline further down and AGW be more thoroughly falsified, enough AGW’ers will come to deny this to produce a ‘mother of all denialisms’, and some skeptics will want to use the d-word too, obviously more accurately. Until then, its use surrounding AGW just says something pitiful about the user, his/her degree of conviction.
My new word for them is “co2 phobics”. I figure phobia of an inert gas used to make bubbles in beer is about as denigrating as I can get in polite company.
The result of the ABC’s Drum poll is nothing more than a reflection of the audience they attract. The organisation exhibits blatant left wing bias and promotes AGW alarmism in almost every aspect of it’s news and current affairs programs. So that poll result would be little surprise to most of us here in Australia.
Andy G says:
March 22, 2011 at 10:47 pm
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 🙂
Surely the word ‘Cult’ is the best way to describe the AGW fanatics.
I would not worry too much about the term. Language shifts.
Interesting point, The Government is made up of Greens and Labor + some independents. The Greens have, as policy, an Anti-Israel denial policy. They have implemented the policy in some local councils (Marckville). So by strict definition they are Holocaust Deniers. And they are controlling the Green Tax debate.
So don’t worry, a lot of these people don’t even know the connotations.
I’m with BrianH @1:34am
But it is incontestable that “denier” is certainly intended to be offensive by the hyperthermalists.
I’m surprised no one else so far has remarked on Jolly Jim Hansen’s repeated use of “death trains” and “death factories” for coal trains and power plants.
But that is indicative of the moral bankrupcy of Hansen and so many of the alarmists. Similar to UK’s Green Party MP Caroline Lucas and her statement that someone taking their family on holiday to Spain is equivalent to someone stabbing a stranger in the street.
It is the AGW people who are the climate change deniers; skeptics accept natural climate change, they don’t.
The entire issue ( of labeling the opposition ) is so freaking stupid, I can’t believe grown people waste their time with it. Both sides should quit acting like 3 year old children whining to Mommy.
Fact of the matter is, The liberal party are out of touch and ignorant. If they don’t bone up on their c.c. knowledge, soon enough. they will have earned the title ‘denier’ for putting opposition before argumentation.
Frankly, the political landscape in Australia is dire. We are taking priministerial orders from a Marxist; Mr. Brown, Julia Gillard is politically impotent and The ABC regularly, and strategically make fools of liberal candidate’s buffoonery on national TV.
Can someone please get over here and give them some coaching?
Tim Flannery is given open slather to sermonise on the ABC and he is left unchallenged because frankly, Liberal politicians argue with catch phrases and conjecture and are therefore no better.
Luboš Motl says:
March 22, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Quite right. Many of the natural processes driving climate change are poorly understood and, as they are researched, increasingly introduce ‘inconvenient facts’ into the debate.
You touch on a mode of thinking and argumentation that is common among the more extreme proponents of CAGW. They ‘project’ their own flawed thinking onto those they see as threatening their beliefs. This is a form of ‘psychological projection’. and is often coupled with a ‘best-form-of-defence-is-attack’ approach to debate.
Some people, particularly politicians, use this purely as a rhetorical device. For those that truly believe what they are saying, the implications, for them, are far more serious…
Quit while ahead on red herrings. Some greenhouse gasses are toxic enough to be used in gas chambers and bad air days reported in all non-US cities.
With regard to the Carbon dioxide tax (note NOT CARBON) we should all call them polluters of the atmosphere because they breath out carbon dioxide. The best thing the believers of AGW can do to improve the future lives of everyone is to keep their mouth tightly shut.
Personally I find the denier tag all a bit rich coming from the original ‘data deniers’. Still we shouldn’t generalise as there are AGW adherents like Prof Richard Muller who can look at their silly policy prescriptions logically and dispassionately.
Andrew Bolt has also alerted us to a useful 10 point roundup of their ‘consensus science’ by Joseph D’Aleo here-
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_1.pdf
and here-
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_failures_part_II.pdf
My take is, the more these particular Team fans hurl abuse and throw their tantrums, the more inclined reasonable people are to delve further and deeper into the facts of the matter. AGW fanatics never recovered their kumbayah mojo after Copenhagen and their frustration and anger really shows nowadays.
Flip side of “alarmist”. The question is whether it’s accurate. If one denies global warming, one’s enemies might call him a “denier”. However, to call a sceptic a denier is to be factually incorrect.
I deny that human activity is causing climate change. I don’t really care what Climate Change Hucksters call me. But, You have to admit, they have a much catchier title.
OLD TIME SAYING: If you knew how seldom some people think, you wouldn’t care what they think.
Sure, turnabout is fair play. But I wouldn’t give them ‘climate change’. It’s just a weasily hedge. They are ‘global-warming Nazis’.
/Mr Lynn
“Fergus T. Ambrose says:
March 23, 2011 at 4:43 am”
CO2 won’t be any of those toxic GHGs you talk of, well not in concentrations on Earth currently and into the forseable future.
Did anyone scroll down to see the results of the previous ABC polls? They don’t make encouraging reading for Australia.
If 10% of the population are of an ethnic group or religion and you use words which they find offensive then the words spoken are offensive.
If we take the Australian poll on its merits and 46% find the term denier offensive then the term is offensive. QED
It is the AGW’s that have politicized this issue and they constantly attack rational people as that is the game they play
This whole nonsense does not come from looking at emprical data it is derived from climate models that do not reflect reality the bottom line being they can take a given amount of CO2 and predict positive feedback (warming) but the models cannot account properly for negative feedback (cooling).
I stand to be corrected but when Bob Carter challenged CRU in 2006 over there being no warming since 1998 the answer from CRU was along the lines of “we did not attempt to estimate internally generated natural variations…ect (or words to that effect).
In other words the temp will increase by X over thee next 100 years…..BUT that does not allow for clouds, rain. volcanic ash in the atmosphere and other things such as ocillation of the oceans…and many other things.
The point I am trying to make is that the AGW’s try to discredit us by avoiding the science…so learn some “one liners” that make them discuss the science such as “what are you allowing for negative feedback in your climate models?”…..and await a response.
I am sure there are people on this site who can do a better job than me but we must learn to play te game on our terms…..not theirs.
It’s offensive, yes, but more disturbingly, it’s ignorant.
Stefan says:
March 23, 2011 at 3:20 am
It is the mentality of the Dark Ages, where you just execute or exile anybody whose views you don’t like.
Stalin did that too. And when the Census Bureau produced that about 16 million people had disappeared since the last census, the Census Bureau officers were all sent in an excursion to a nice, quiet place in Siberia.
You want a catchphrase?
DOGMA KILLS.
Hm, dogma causes erectile dysfunction?
When Warmistas use the “denier” label for those who disagree with their Warmist ideology, it is of course meant to be insulting, though it isn’t neccessarily. Thus, we have the “I’m a Denier” video: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29754, and Lawrence Solomon wrote a book called “The Deniers”.
On the other hand, the phrase “climate change denier” is certainly a deliberate reference to “holocaust denier”. In an interview on CBS’s program “60 Minutes”, Scott Pelley was asked why he “did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics” when he did broadcasts on the subject, and his reply was “If I do an interview with Ellie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust Denier?”
As has been pointed out, the phrase is also idiotic, since no one claims that the climate hasn’t changed, or indeed isn’t continually changing, as well as dishonest. But, that will not stop the climate bedwetters from using it.
I don’t find it offensive, just stupid, puerile, combative, misleading, etc.
I deny that we will ever know everything about everything. I affirm that we will make successive approximations to the truth through repeated and verifiable science. Sadly the AGW folks do not provide a platform to test their drivel.
There is no doubt the climate is changing. Despite several revisions in the name, the core agenda has always been to pin the blame on human activity from which would spring the political will to impose rules that only sought to destroy personal liberty and power, particularly of advanced western countries. This is doubly the case since these same advocates were happy to give China and India a pass for their contribution to the presumed causes.
But it remains to be established to what extent human activity is causing the climate change we observe, for we are still wrestling over the factual basis of the changes we observe.
If saying the above makes me a “denier”, than what exactly am I in denial of? A self-loathing leftist agenda? Yes, I happily call that out for what it plainly is. Am I denying a human role in climate change? No, as a pilot I have seen weather downwind of a city that is slightly different than the upwind weather. However, nobody has yet to show me hard data that proves the change is for the worse. That for me is an open question. And nobody seems to care for the economic implications of spending trillions of dollars to nudge the global temperature down by 0.05 degrees, as if the health and welfare of the people from whom that money must be extracted did not have their own plans for that mountain of wealth. Of that fact, those who now resort to hateful rhetoric are certainly in denial themselves.
The term Climate Change Denier is not offensive. It describes alot of us. I deny the “Climate Change” myth that AGW Warmistas perpetuate.
I think its perfectly fine if people want to call me a climate change denier. I’ve always said there is climate change, its called spring, summer, fall and winter. So since they changed global warming to climate change, yeah I think it’s a hoax. I think my definition of climate change is more accurate.
Living here in the U.S. , I’ve never met anyone who didn’t believe the holocaust happened, so the “deny the holocaust” is a non-issue with me. Having had a religious upbringing, I associate the ” denier” term with religious quotes like,
Jesus said, “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:33)
For me, the term puts the user in the position of a religious fundamentalist who is attacking all those who don’t believe in the one true religion of AGW as deniers.
I don’t get it: Is ‘denier’ a word that is now owned by the
holocaust industry?
Do you have a ‘taboo word’ database that you expect everyone to
honor?
The war ended 66 years ago; 50 million people died in it. Am I
supposed to worry or care in particular about a small subset of the
victims? I care about my own people first, including those who died in the war, and *then* about other peoples.
I recently had an AGW Warmist loudly declare that the AGW True Believers were the real sceptics while the rest were “deniars of the science”.
So there is an obvious attempt by the SGW movement to reclaim the term “sceptic”.
It’s a bit like claiming that the catholic church owned scepticism over the geocentric view of the solar system in the 1500s.
Mike McMillan says:
March 22, 2011 at 9:42 pm
“No more offensive than “climate change shill” or “climate change huckster,” though somewhat less accurate.”
I rather like “Climate Change Fascists” for the CAGW crowd – which is an accurate description of them…
From wikipedia…
“Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2]”
Can we talk about the little ice age, the medieval warm period and the roman warm period? Can we talk about 5000-6000 years when there was less ice around Greenland? Oh no, we have to deny these climate changes.
Ad hominem labels are not good descriptors. It is a somewhat successful but unworthy way of winning a debate in the short run.
How about “infidels” since a belief system is being questioned, a reverse ad hominem if that’s the way the game is being played.
Name calling is a last resort when the argument has run out.
The word is intended as an offensive put down to win an argument, to silence opposition with a slur, a common tactic of the left, but it no longer works and that has them frustrated.
I tend to refer to myself as a “climate science critic” rather than skeptic. I don’t think the science has proven anything one way or the other, due to poor data collection & analysis, lousy statistical methods (when used at all), biases from UHI, etc.
Re-boot the process, clean up the science, shake the charlatans out of the system, and show me what ya got. I’ll make up my mind then.
I have no problem with “climate change denier”, but how will they feel when they are called, “climate change alarmist”?
In reality, this is just word games and proves NOTHING. Let’s stick to the science:
(1) For now, the exact temperature change is unclear, but we will know later this year.
(2) Once we know the amount, it’s difficult to judge how much is due to CO2 and how much is due to something else. After all, we could be seeing a long term change that’s part of the natural cycle.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
March 23, 2011 at 8:25 am
I tend to refer to myself as a “climate science critic” rather than skeptic. I don’t think the science has proven anything one way or the other, due to poor data collection & analysis, lousy statistical methods (when used at all), biases from UHI, etc.
Re-boot the process, clean up the science, shake the charlatans out of the system, and show me what ya got. I’ll make up my mind then.
There is nothing to make up your mind about. You’re either a Believer or you aren’t. As you say, the Alarmist claims haven’t been proven. In fact, their conjecture has been shown to be mostly puffed-up nonsense posing as science. In the final analysis, the burden these past few decades has been upon them to show that they are right, and they have failed miserably.
I’d say that a religion class is pretty much where that movie belongs. Was the teacher perhaps making a subtle dig at the “science” in it?
Latest figures on ninemsn poll: Do you support the carbon tax?
Yes :- 24,335
No :-117,129
Total :-141,464 Votes
The following is my cross-post from Jo Nova’s blog on March 18th 2011:
It’s a sad commentary on the state of politics in Australia when the silent majority is finally driven onto the streets out of sheer frustration to protest nonsensical destructive policies of a Government clinging to power with the support of, and being held to ransom by, a radical minority party and a ragtag gaggle of self-serving “Independents”.
Worse is the fact that the tipping point has been the decision by Julia Gillard to deliberately deceive voters and lie before the election by promising “no carbon tax”, then figuratively give the voting public “the finger” and do a cynical backflip.
She and her Government have no mandate to now impose such a costly measure which will destroy productive jobs, force industries overseas, cause most if not all prices of consumer goods and services to rise, and open up more opportunities for con-men and rorters as has happened with every bungled scheme the Rudd/Gillard mish-mash has introduced in the last few years.
All for no discernible environmental benefit, with the whole charade based on fatally flawed self-serving computer-modelled pseudo-science backed by vast financial, UN and Government resources and almost complete compliance and assistance from all branches of the the Mainstream Media!
Though we know the protest will be characterised in MSM and “AGW believer” circles as a failure, I believe it will give great heart to those who see the folly of the Government decisions and will provide new hope and incentive for more ordinary people to make their views known in whatever way they see best.
“Scoffer is stronger than “skeptic” and weaker than denier”; it’s just right. I suggest we call ourselves “scorcher scoffers.”
How about greenshirt?
It’s not just that they’ll be shown to be wrong, but conceitedly wrong-headed as well.
Here’s a better term: Carbochondria!
If they want to use the denier tag from Nazi times, how about that other Nazi line?
“Tell a big enough lie often enough and get the government to back it up and most people will believe it.”
This so fits the runaway climate belief system proponents!
“Climate Change Denier” is of course nonsensical; in German the term used is “Klimaleugner” – “climate denier” – even more nonsensical. The deeper idea behind these labels is to own and redefine the term Climate Change and reprogram the population to automatically assume it is man-made and evil. This way, you get one more tool to scare the people. In Germany, “radioactivity” already serves this purpose. There are no attempts by the media or the school system to give people a rational understanding; everybody, especially the media and the politicians are interested in creating more of these scare tools, and using them as often as possible; it is their business. This includes our public broadcasters (who are controlled by politicians).
I don’t know who used “Climate change denier” and “Klimaleugner” first, but they smell a lot like PR agency creations; or PsyOp weapons.
DirkH says:
March 23, 2011 at 12:54 pm
“I don’t know who used “Climate change denier” and “Klimaleugner” first, but they smell a lot like PR agency creations; or PsyOp weapons.”
Thanks for suggesting this question. In the USA, the tracks are as clear as footprints on permafrost. The ancestor of “denier” and similar terms is the invention by Saul Alinsky of “homophobe.” In the Sixties, “homophobe” had become an accepted term widely used throughout academia in the USA. The psychology of the term is beautiful. The term pretends to be polite. After all, you are politely asked the question “Are you homophobic?” The appropriate time for the question is during an actual invitation to a professor’s house. If you answer “No,” then you have just committed yourself to not reacting badly when you see outrageous behavior at the professor’s house. If you answer “Yes,” then it is explained that it would not be wise for you to visit. Of course, the term embodies a political assault. But it remains blessed in the halls of American academia. The term “X denier,” where X stands for whatever, is a cruder version of “homophobe.” American academia is dominated by Political Correctness and one dare not reveal that he or she is a denier.
In another thread, I suggested ‘Carbophobia’.
The Global-Warming Nazis are unquestionably carbophobes.
/Mr Lynn
I notice my comment never made it through moderation yesterday; which part caused offense? My comparison of Bolt with Glenn Beck? My clarification that the term “denier” is not restricted to the Holocaust? Or that Abbott indeed does deny AGW?
Probably all, as none of it made it.
[Reply: Some posts were missing due to WordPress being shut down for several hours yesterday. ~dbs, mod.]
There are many of us in OZ who are of the pragmatic left who disregard the orthodoxy regarding man-made climate-change but have no time for Bolt and his general pronouncements. Hate being painted by a large brush !
As and when global temperature drops and the media acknowledge AGW hype for what it is, I wonder how many of them will deny that they were taken in by the scam?
I can’t say I like it as (a) there is in fact a climate, and (b) it does and in fact has changed repeatedly over the course of nearly four billion years and not just since the mid 1800s. So that would in effect be denying scientific reality. But then they also label realists as ‘flat earthers’ which is effect what they are given the fact once upon a time the concensus scientific opinion was the earth was flat, I think we all know how that argument worked out. Ahem…
I can’t understand how Australia can embrace climate change, specifically the harmful effects of co2, while exporting so much coal to China.
I have less and less objection to denier tag recently, i am really liking it specially by reaction i get from lefties and greens when they use it and i answer with Holocaust History . Everytime i get that i start talking about Holocaust and how Jews were murdered – i am WW2 story nut so i can talk about a long time- and all lefties start showing how they are getting uncomfortable.
I don’t find the term “denier” offensive. While the holocaust was real and can only be denied by those consciously ignoring proven and incontravertable evidence, and was an evel most evil, it cannot be the the only event/belief/fact that can be “denied”. What is absolutely ludicrous is that the term should be used against those who obviously don’t deny that there is climate (as in “climate denier”) or even climate change (as in “climate change denier”). No-one denies that there is climate, and anyone who can read, think, and/or observe will be aware that climate changes over time – sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. What I deny, and with good reason because I read and think and have observed for 60+ years, is that the variability (ie changeability!) is extreme, is unprecedented, it likely to be catastrophic, or is caused by the increased amount of plant food into the air. I also deny that it is good science to disregard evidence, ignore alternative views without proper investigation, and base all pronouncements upon political leanings or desired outcomes.
Here we go again. You can be imprisoned for underestimating one particular holocaust. You cannot (yet) be imprisoned for being a climate change sceptic. Those who wish to imprison dissidents use the word ‘denier’ for climate change sceptics. Climate change sceptics react by saying, in effect, “don’t amalgamate us with holocaust deniers”. This article is yet another example of this tactical error. You-all don’t say “defend freedom of speech”, but “defend freedom of speech for good people”. It’s no good pleading with the thought police to distinguish bad dissidents from good ones.
[snip off-color comment – Anthony]
The ABC is a leftist collective Sandbox paid for by the long suffering Australian workers, who are generally too tired to be politically engaged after a hard days work, and who watch the commercial channels anyway. Any poll on the ABC Drum will be skewed way to the left. For a different audience, but closely related poll subject – look at Alan Jones from 2GB radio station – a bit to the right of the ABC. Question: Do you want your federal MP to vote in favour of a carbon tax? Response: Of 21365 respondents 274 or 1.3% voted Yes. 21091 or 98.7% voted No (I confess to being one of those). Obviously the audience and voters are preselected, so you get different results. Alan Jones is at this address (If it doesnt paste just look up google) http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_homepage&id=1&Itemid=44
?Denier? ?Offensive? Not anymore offensive than the title for those of the opposite camp: “The CC Pushers”. But, I guess there is also good reason to have a few more titles too. It’s very difficult to cram everyone in this religion into the same phonebooth. For those who support The CCPushers there are The CCAddicts, The CCPsyentists, The CCPrefessers, The CCPriests, The CCAnarchists, The CCSocialists, The CCCommunists, The CCInvestors, The CCBankers, The CCCapitalists, TheCCAnimals, The CCVegetables, The CCMinerals. For the countless multitude of those on the opposite side of the battlefield.. well, I guess, deniers is sufficient, there’s just too many different reasons to be a denier to even attempt to list them.
John F. Hultquist says:
March 22, 2011 at 9:48 pm
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
You forgot one John.
It is offensive because it is intended to be offensive.
There’s just no reasoning with climate change pimps like Combet. Like any other pimp they’re in it for the money and power that comes from screwing the public.
It is MEANT to be offensive. That IMHO says all.
I was aware of your coinage, but I like mine (inspired by yours, BTW) better because:
1. It’s alliterative.
2. It’s a stronger sneer (a hypochondriac, and by extension any -chondriac, has moved beyond being -phobic (avoidant) and become a bedwetting hysteric).
I think that the wrong question is being asked. The label “denier” may be offensive to those who are termed deniers, but it may be accurate.
Professor Muller, the man behind the BEST climate data set, in his famous lectures on climate change and what people need to know, does differentiate between what he calls the “properly skeptical”, and those whom he call “deniers”. The latter, according to him, don’t really understand or pay attention to the scientifically accepted principles of climate science in their arguments, and base their opinions on political motives. I don’t see any motive involving politics in his distinction. He does in fact excoriate Gore and others whom he terms “alarmists” about the errors of science that they make as well.
http://scienceatcal.berkeley.edu/lectures/2011/03
I think this distinction is legitimate and the term is descriptive. “Deniers” are those who deny the accepted tenets of climate science. Skeptics are those who use real science to challenge some of the conclusions drawn by climate scientists.
eadler says:
March 25, 2011 at 7:24 pm
‘“Deniers” are those who deny the accepted tenets of climate science.’
Would you care to state the accepted tenets of climate science? I would just love the opportunity to criticize each of them and your vision of the complete list.
There are no “deniers,” only critics. Just as there are no homophobes, only people critical of homosexuality. Otherwise, eadler, you are a carbophobe, with all the evil that entails.
Theo Goodwin says:
March 26, 2011 at 9:29 am
eadler says:
March 25, 2011 at 7:24 pm
‘“Deniers” are those who deny the accepted tenets of climate science.’
Would you care to state the accepted tenets of climate science? I would just love the opportunity to criticize each of them and your vision of the complete list.
There are no “deniers,” only critics. Just as there are no homophobes, only people critical of homosexuality. Otherwise, eadler, you are a carbophobe, with all the evil that entails.
Why don’t you listen to Muller’s lecture to find out what he has to say about it.
He discusses numerous examples in which he distinguishes between “proper skeptics” and “deniers”. For instance a denier would claim that humans are not responsible for the increase in CO2, or that the concentration of CO2 is at 390ppM is too small to do any harm. Both of these propositions show an ignorance of the science, as Muller points out.
Skeptics are those who would question the real uncertainties in the science, like model accuracy, because we don’t really have enough data or accurate models of clouds.
This kind of distinction seems reasonable to me.
It is kind of unusual to ask the question whether ‘denier’ is offensive, when I see many comments calling people egghead, stupid obnoxious rant, moron, ignorant, etc. in some of the old posts here involving some personalities who are proponents of global warming. For example just take a look at the ‘Lonnie Thomson pushes Gloom and Doom’ post dated Dec 10, 2010. I don’t like to call anyone a ‘denier’, but at the same time we should show some respect towards the other side also.