This comment was sent to me in case it was not posted at all or in it’s entirety over at Climate Progress. It wasn’t, so I’m repeating it here because I think it is relevant to the discussion that Dr. Judith Curry started. From my perspective, the best way to begin to foster understanding is to stop using labels that degrade, and that goes for both sides of the debate.
– Anthony
Kate says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 27, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Judith Curry wrote “I reserve the word “deniers” for people that are explicitly associated with advocacy groups that are politicizing this issue…”
I reserve the word “deniers” for people that explicitly reject the history of Jewish extermination in wartime Germany.
When I see anyone legitimize the term “denier” in the context of this debate, an alarm bell goes off – “this is not a serious person”.
To do so is to commit an unforgivable devaluation of the historical relevance of the word “denier. It’s a rhetorical tactic unworthy of anyone who wants their scientific credibility to remain above reproach.
When the word “denier” first crawled out of the political slime, I fully expected those in science and media alike to reject it, vocally and without qualification.
Instead, it has become mainstream.
Small wonder that a great percentage of ordinary observers such as I begin to question that we haven’t been fed one big, fat lie after all. For the people propagating it have seemingly lost all sense of historical proportion.
Not to mention, curious double standard.
Outrageous buffoons like Al Gore zoom about the planet in private jets in the name of your “science”. The WWF travel agency zooms multi-millionaires around the world in private chartered jets in the name of your “science”.
When those who support the AGW position fail to categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, fail to categorically reject activist scams, fail to categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.
You may know a lot about science. You understand precious little about public perception.
“When those who support the AGW position fail to categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, fail to categorically reject activist scams, fail to categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.”
Wouldn’t this be more understandable if it were:
When those who support the AGW position categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, categorically reject activist scams, categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.
Harsh but fair.
I think the author did not mean to use “fail to” in this.
“””””When those who support the AGW position fail to categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, fail to categorically reject activist scams, fail to categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.”””””‘
Anthony,
I believe the letter would be more understandable if it were edited as follows:
“When those who support the AGW position fail to categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, fail to categorically reject activist scams, fail to categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.”
When those who support the AGW position categorically reject the “Al Gores” as spokespersons, categorically reject activist scams, categorically reject the use of unacceptable smears ….then, and only then, will you be able to hope for a restoration of confidence in what you do. You have a long road ahead.
And, most of these deniers do not deny global warming or AGW. They only question catastrophic global warming [CAGW]. Where is the “denier” in that?
“I reserve the word “deniers” for people that explicitly reject the history of Jewish extermination in wartime Germany.”
A ridiculous taboo. I thought you had more sense.
Judith Curry,
the word ‘deniers’ is older than you and your great grandfathers were, now if some word reminds you of your horrible nightmares when you were a child and putting people that use them into such categories makes you look stupid…
Zurgel,
The reference to reserving “denier” to the holocaust may be a rhetorical one. It’s obvious that one can use “denier” in many contexts. What the writer appears to be saying is that “denier” should be reserved for those situations where the facts are without doubt. To disagree is to be a “denier” of the truth.
IMHO ‘denier’ is simply a very pejorative term.
It’s been used by all manner of controlling regimes that didn’t like the truth – whether is was the first flat-Earthers, N4zi apologists, the Inquisition – and now a branch of science in the 21st century.
What a very sad state of affairs we have reached.
It’s like the inference of a reporter saying Mr X ‘claimed’ – denier is a deliberate twisting of language to suit those who want to shut down and smear nay-sayers.
I really hope this will soon be gone.
[snip if I’m rambling OT]
The word “denier” is no longer used by the true believers, we’re now denialists.
Thanks, kuhnkat
You’re absolutely correct, and the edit is appropriate.
Deniers©
Butcher, you might want to go back and look at who is saying what. You have it wrong.
Deniers™
Deniers®
l would agree deniers needs to be reserved for the Holocost deniers.
The word fascist now is reserved for the Nazis, no one thinks of Musiline or the Spanish when this word is used. It no longer means a political/economic system where the private section owns the business but the government sets the rules. You hear fascist you think Hitler. You hear deniers you think KKK, skin heads, Akmudenajad (sorry about the spelling).
The use of the word deniers by the AWG crowd is intentional, it is meant to link the people who question AWG to those who deny the holocost.
I like the word “denialist.” It sounds so much more professional 🙂
It has been theorized before that the new generation of climate scientists (spurred by all the grants) will have to break new ground if they want to be noticed. It was also assumed that some of them will take on the establishment. I think the recent exposure to the insider dealings of the cabal will just further spur the Team’s future rival researchers.
The widespread use of the term “denier” with respect to AGW, IIRC, originated with Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman: “Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
To understand the true depth of hatred the left has for those who they class as “deniers” you only need to understand that Iran’s President Ahmadinejad (a true holocaust denier) gets more respect from the leftists, the media and select climate scientists then Steve McIntyre. From my point of view that alone precludes the possibility of redemption.
Excellent comment. However, the second to last paragraph unfortunately says the opposite of what was intended, I believe.
The Jewish virtual library documents Holocaust Denial
“Deniers” can expect serious legal consequences:
Emory University in Atlanta documents Holocaust Denial on Trial Holocaust Denial on Trial: Using History to Confront Distortions.
In the Holocaust Encyclopedia, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum documents HOLOCAUST DENIERS AND PUBLIC MISINFORMATION
In discussions or debate over climate science, “denier” is a pejorative term ambiguously accusing a person of denying:
* 1) that “global warming” is occurring,
* 2) that “anthropogenic global warming” is occurring, or
* 3) that “global warming” is unquestionably caused by anthropogenic causes.
This is an illogical ad hominem attack rather than addressing the substance of the argument.
Long term global warming: I and all scientists and literate persons I know of, recognize, and do not “deny”, that long term “global warming” has been occurring for about 11,000 years since the last ice age.
Anthropogenic global warming: Similarly, I do not “deny” generic anthropogenic causes to “global warming” or “climate change”. Anyone having a basic understanding of solar energy and “albedo” recognizes that converting a forest to a field or ploughing the prairie is decreasing the albedo and increasing absorption of solar radiation. The consequent US “dust bowl” caused significant climate effects. Burning coal generates sulfate aerosols that cool the planet while “clean air” legislation reducing sulfate emissions will reduce this cooling.
Thus, to accuse a person of being a “global warming denier” per se is a knowingly false libelous accusation inferring moral and scientific perfidy.
The key scientific issue is whether “anthropogenic” causes dominate natural causes for the “global warming” of the latter half of the 20th century.
The Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 AR4 Summary for Policy Makers Sect. 2 p 5 concludes
(The IPCC
defines “very likely” as at least 90 percent certain.)
Conversely, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 report Climate Change Reconsidered in the Excutive Summary cites other evidence and concludes the opposite:
Whether the global warming from the mid-20th century to the end of the 20th century is caused primarily by anthropogenic causes is thus a scientific issue that is subject to scientific contention and evaluation.
The environmental movement has made “anthropogenic global warming” a major political issue. Heated political advocates try to use “denier” pejoratively as meaning ignorantly denying the scientific evidence. Emotions run high from beliefs that opponents are “destroying Mother Earth” and killing millions of people in Bangladesh etc.
Any scientist using “denier” is in effect making a pejorative political ad hominem attack rather than objectively addressing the substance of the scientific facts hypotheses, models, and theories. It also demeans the incredible suffering and atrocities committed during World War II.
I endorse Kate’s email and strongly recommend avoiding calling any person a “denier” in this and other forums, and explicitly challenging each person who does so.
Ok how about Heretic, Apostate, Witch, all would be used by the AGW crowd if they
acknowledged their true religion…
One of the more surprising aspects of the Climategate Papers has been the extent to which the elite climate scientist (the Team) use intimidation to control the debate. To me, its gotten quite chilling. We’ve seen this sort of ‘consensus by intimidation’ several times before in human history, and in each case, its not ended well. I wrote this at CA:
——–
“At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics.”
The three options proffered so far have been:
(a) Strangle them as they sleep at night (Joe Galliani)
(b) Beat the crap out of them (Ben Santer)
(c) Subject them to Nuremberg-style trials (David Roberts)
Dr Curry, I hope that you might offer some additional options that are more in keeping with civil discourse. I would also hope that you would completely cease using linguistic devices meant to liken your opponents to Holocaust deniers.
For all of Dr Curry’s courtesy her refusal to condemn the use of labels makes it obvious that she still sees the world of science through the eyes of political activism.
I disagree with you on this. Make no mistake, this is an infowar and its importance should allow all tricks available. The moral high ground is of course an asset but we have that one already. Don’t try to fight other wars at the same time. Lindzen called himself a denier and the word has the power to make the headlines. The word skeptic is too weak. It’s time also to ease this Holocaust syndrome for that matter. No pardon for history professors of course but dont let us others have to deal with conscience every time some possible guilt by semantic assocication comes up.
Also don’t be too nice. McIntyre naively reached out a hand. Pretense to change human nature and aspire to sanctity is just letting the enemy off the hook. Deniers/skeptics are a mixed bag and you should just hold on to the enemy with all fair means.
A few months ago I did a googlebooks search on “denier”… Of course it was used to describe those that deny the reality of the Holocaust. Also in newer and older books it describes a measurement used in the textiles industry. However in older books the word denier was hard to find in the context of “one who denies”. In pre WWII books, the only instances I found that used that meaning of the word were in reference to some religious belief.
Draw your own conclusions.
Does this mean that any time a commenter uses the term “denier” he or she has evoked Godwin’s Law and the moderator can delete the comment? I suspect it would improve the discourse.
She got it! No different than “do you still beat your wife?” question.
Denier also carries a religious connotation. I think one could freely substitute heretic in their correspondences with no loss of meaning.
So what about all the hoax-deniers?
Completely so. And though it’s not offensive in the same way that use for the word “denier” is, I also find her obsession with the oil industry, again while saying nothing about the eco-crusaders and their carbonaceous lifestyles, rather suspicious. She certainly doesn’t seem to be interested in “fair and balanced”.
i read Curry’s editorial and i am very disappointed. the whole leaked file business is seen as a PR fiasco, but not even for a split second the validity of the whole CRU work is questioned.
these are not scientists, these are priests of a religion. no amount of proof will ever generate doubts in them. they dont want to see, or hear.
AGW is right, “deniers” are wrong. Jones and company shoud resign not because they have falsified data, but because they are now in the way of making AGW a mandatory religion. they are guilty of having given “skeptics” an edge they dont deserve. the show must go on, AGW is too important and no distraction from the achievement of the final goal can be afforded by the “scientific” community. Jones at al must be understood anyway, they are under so much pressure from politicized or big-oil funded denialists
these people are beyond repair, and that includes Ms. Curry.
i see the MSM ignoring the whole FOIA file affaire, politicians stick to their global warming agendas. i am afraid at some stage some radical action will be required, these people are blinded by faith, they are fanatics.
all this reminds me of what happened in italy with communist terrorism. the italian communist party ejected the terrorists because they were a PR nuisance to them, but they were never publicly condemned, they were just “comrades doing mistakes”.
same happens now. Jones at al have made mistakes, but doesnt change the fact that AGW is real, northpole is melting, seas are raising and we will be drowned or fried in a decade or two. CRU had to forge results, too bad they got caught….
I understand the perspective of the poster. The word “denier” has taken on attributes of and associations with denial of the mid century Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry. You can object to this use of language whether you have personal connections to this historical crime, are offended by the cavalier use in the context of an intellectual dispute, or just ashamed of the obviously slanderous impact (and really snide winking slander at that) in using the term to belittle opponents and reduce their actual positions to that of being Nazi cartoons.
I personally believe that no one owns a word. Not “denier”. Not “Holocaust”. But I am not so foolish or insensitive to understand the effect that these words have given the historical context. The people using these words to defame their opponents rather than address their contentions know exactly what they are doing, and the line they are treading.
At the very best people using a term like “deniers” for skeptics of Hockey Sticks or Carbon Credit Ponzi schemes, or mathematical mismashes of completely different data sets analyzed to pull patterns rather than detect them are thinly veiling their ad hominem attacks and pushing buttons they know will inflame sensitivities.
This wouldn’t pass in high school debating let alone “science” that seeks to fundamentally change the way the entire world lives through the expenditure of trillions of dollars on “solutions” that may not even address the “problem” because the problem has been defined dishonestly and all dissent quashed.
And just for the record, I don’t deny that there is climate change driven by anthropomorphic factors. I just think that the details ares still ill defined, the models are invented out of whole cloth, and the actual trends and their causes are almost certainly more complex than described.
And even if we accept everything the Hockey Team thinks they have proven, how in the world is it a rational reaction to say that destroying the world economy through a singled minded focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide and setting up a scam derivatives market to trade carbon credits is the only way to go.
I am not some free market birther 9-11 truther nutbar. I would be perfectly happy to pay a hefty tax to subsidize both research and production of solar, biomass, wave or any other renewable energy source – because it would be useful regardless of who turns out to be factually correct. In about 50 years.
Well said Kate.
The other labels which are often used are wrt “sanity” of critics and their motives and morals. These are just other forms of “ad hom” which avoid dealing with valid questions and arguments.
i am a global warming denier and proud of it.
Keep deception and lies far from me,
Give me neither poverty nor riches;
Feed me with the food that is my portion,
That I not be full and deny You and say, “Who is the LORD?”
Or that I not be in want and steal,
And profane the name of my God. Proverbs 30:8-9 [bold added]
To use denier as a pejorative term and mean anything other then the Holocaust should almost automatically put you in the same class as Ahmadinejad and his ilk as one who truly denies or just doesn’t give a damn about millions who died in unimaginable horror.
Most of the people who are called ‘holocaust deniers’ do not deny the Holocaust – they merely question the numbers (and some of them have not-very-nice political opinions too, but so what?). The term has always been used in a dishonest and political way. It’s not possible to ‘devalue’ the meaning of the word as Dr. Curry fears. It has already become a political weapon, and it is not surprising it is used against climate skeptics.
The tactic used – by calling them “deniers” or suggesting, as some have, that disagreeing should be made illegal! – is politics, not science. Marginalizing your opponent is precisely what activist politician’s do. The technique is described in books and is used nearly every day by political hacks.
The climate science community has indeed marginalized everyone who had any perspective other than their own by labeling them “deniers” (which from the beginning was clearly intended to invoke “holocaust deniers”) and a host of other action intimidation tactics described in the emails (suppressing peer review, suppressing publication, suppressing alternative views, controlling the public relations).
The proper term for someone who ignores the facts is to say they are wrong and not supported by the facts. Not to associate them with holocaust deniers.
Climate science is a serious subject and deserves to be treated seriously. But acting like school yard bullies and writing poor quality code (I have found bugs in it) indicates that the climate scientists don’t take their work seriously. When you take your work seriously, and act like professionals, many of us will again take your seriously.
You have a long road ahead.
It’s Al Gore that created the rift between scientists. Shame on the scientists that use(d) the same tactic to promote their agenda.
I’m pretty sure the word “denier” was originally intended to be an insult, and any linking of the term with “holocaust denier” was intentional. However the meaning of words change. (The word “fantastic” was once an expression of horror, and applied to thing such as ghouls and ghosts.)
I don’t think banning words because they aren’t PC will ever work. There is something irreverent in human nature, and as soon as you ban a word, the irreverent side of human nature rejoices, and promptly uses the word.
The song “Yankee Doodle” was originally a smear, and an expression of contempt and scorn towards Americans by British troops. However the meaning changed, and the song was adopted by American Troops as a favorite.
The meaning of the word “denier” has changed in a similar fashion. Now it is a badge of honor. However, when you think of it, the word itself has no positive or negative meaning. It all depends on what you are denying.
Considering the MSM is gritting its teeth in its attempt to deny Climategate is even occurring, perhaps they deserve the label “denier” for a while. But perhaps the word has gathered too much honor now, and they don’t deserve such flattery.
Personally, I reckon I’m a refuter.
Or, come to think of it, a refutenik.
In the context of “man made global warming” I have also seen the term “denier” evolve based on those who do not accept the science as true as “being in denial”. IMO this is meant to say it is just a stage on a “psychological” journey on which the enlightened “believers” have already travelled.
Given they’ve organised conferences and written papers on how to account for and manage this “denial” I’m afraid I don’t have much respect for psychologists as scientists.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_en-GBES263ES263&q=psychology+of+climate+denial
I have read both of Judith Curry’s post, at CA and CP and have come away with a bad taste in my mouth after both. Using the term denier is not a happenstance and should be rejected and the user called out.
Additionally, her tone in both was one not of a scientist but a preacher. In a way she was saying that we know what is right, we might need to talk slower and maybe draw a picture to get through to them.
I think Steve and others have been taken in by her politeness but make no mistake, she has not taken any questions about the data or methods into consideration. I don’t even believe she has taken a risk by speaking out. The only report of her being critized is her own.
“Short sighted” would be a better description of the MSM. Here we have a scandal that is big — much bigger than Watergate! It spreads from the UN itself all the way to small countries like New Zeland. This is the story of the century, Pulitzer material (if covered correctly) and the MSM – ALL the MSM are ignoring it!
One more time. Weather pattern shifts that coincided with and were secondary to Pacific oceanic conditions caused the dust bowl. Not the other way around. There have been millions of dust bowls throughout climate history and they can be fairly accurately measured when studying palouse layered soil formations. Dust bowls are also necessary. Without dust bowls, the fishing industry would completely disappear as mass extinctions become a sudden and permanent fixture of the oceanic landscape. The American dust bowl happened right on schedule and in accord with natural weather pattern variations.
Just like using the word Warmongers?
[REPLY – For Sale. One war, pre-owned. (“Batteries” not included.) ~ Evan]
dearieme
I think I’ll be a refutenik to too. Thank you for the laugh.
Denier, proponent, opponent, labels, labels and labels. How about “I am a follower of scientific method”? Of course, I am not a “scientist”, merely a professional civil engineer.
And, since there does appear to be scientific (and measured directly) evidence that trees regulate the temperatures of their leaves, needles, cooling through respiration when the leaves get too hot and heating the leaves through oxidation of surplus sugars when the leaves get too cold, forests must be a factor in moderating the air temperature within the forests. This would, since the air does blow, cause a forest to have a “heat island” or “cool island” effect on areas downwind from the forest.
slow to follow (09:52:37):
Yes, this is the other side of the “denial” coin I think, and may be just as important. If you’ve read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, he credits the Frankfurt School of Marxists with inventing the much-loved tactic of “psychologisation” – explaining all ideological opposition to you as the result of psychological problems clouding your opponents’ minds. When Dr. Curry talks about her “quest to understand skeptics” it sounds as if the same game is being played.
Hot Potato.
If the goverments of the UK, USA and Australia pass the climage change laws they now do so at great risk of inciting revolt within their citizenry.
Are they that stupid?
I.E. – if you passed laws that imposed intentional savagery on your economy and the people knew what the outcome was going to be, plus they knew the reasoning was bogus, would not that put the legitimacy of governement in widespead contempt?
At this point, there has to be serious talk within govenment leadership circles of going down a road that has “coup” written all over it. And that has to put them on pins & needles.
The path for govenment to back out with face-saving grace is wide open. They merely have to cite “ClimateGate” concerns, and they can opt out. You know how politicians like to look good.
Here it is. Your golden parachute, and you keep your smiling face & base intact.
Hot Potato.
If the goverments of the UK, USA and Australia pass the climage change laws they now do so at great risk of inciting their citizenry.
Are they that stupid?
I.E. – if you passed laws that imposed intentional savagery on your economy and the people knew what the outcome was going to be, plus they knew the reasoning was bogus, would not that put the legitimacy of governement in widespead contempt?
At this point, there has to be serious talk within govenment leadership circles of going down a road that has “coup” written all over it. And that has to put them on pins & needles.
The path for govenment to back out with face-saving grace is wide open. They merely have to cite “ClimateGate” concerns, and they can opt out. You know how politicians like to look good.
Here it is. Your Hot Potato.
This ClimateGate Hot Potato has generated millions of denialists.
“Outrageous buffoons like Al Gore zoom about the planet in private jets in the name of your “science”.”
Don’t forget the other outrageous buffoon, the railway engineer who heads up the IPCC.
Meaning is based on context, and that’s true for every word. (eg. the bark of a dog; the bark of a tree.)
We all know what the word “denier” means in the context of global warming. It doesn’t mean what it means in other contexts, like “he denied himself sexually for years”.
Generally, deny is to say no. But in the context of global warming, denier means someone acting in bad faith. If culturally we came to associate bankers as being greedy selfish short sighted incompetents, then you could start calling anyone a banker and they would rightly be offended; they would know what you mean, for the word would have that new meaning.
You can talk about denier in any other context, but in global warming it is no longer an acceptable word. Being gay used to mean something different. Even being joyous has its own connotations in certain contexts.
When global warming speak says you’re a denier, it says you are a person of bad faith. Well, prove it. Show me the evidence that I am acting in bad faith. Don’t just label me without supporting evidence. If someone called me a racist I’d be right to demand they explain why.
I am a denier, and my opinion is based on measurements, facts and real science, what is wrong with that?
Be proud on your “yellow star” of this time.
And again the MSM are ignoring it!
Anthony,
OT, but it would be nice to have a post updating solar activities. I know you are very busy with EAU/CRU. Please keep on with Climategate, it is crucial to cover onging developments . . . it is just that solar posts here were always the greatest! I miss them.
John
REPLY: I haven’t seen the sun in days, forgot all about it. – A
What do you call someone who denies publicly owned scientific data to interested scientists?
Anthony,
OT, but it would be nice to have a post updating solar projections/activities. I know you all are very busy with EAU/CRU. Please keep on with Climategate, it is crucial to cover onging developments . . . it is just that solar posts here were always the greatest! I miss them.
John
Judith Curry wrote “I reserve the word “deniers” for people that are explicitly associated with advocacy groups that are politicizing this issue…”
So Mann, Hansen, etc Al. are Deniers so do “Greenpeace”. Also Kyoto Treaty and Copenhagen are examples of denialism.
If this lady is a scientist i wonder how the scholar quality went down so much. What she wrote doesn’t even pass simple logic.
rbateman (11:06:49) :
Hot Potato.
I agree. But they (members of the government) have a problem. They need Cap & Tax to pay for their beloved social programs, their stimulus package, and cradle-to-grave health care. If they don’t pass CAP & Tax, they won’t have the money to pay for these programs, and as a result they might get “unelected”. Decisions, decisions!
Oh, I almost forgot, in the case of my Senator, Barbara Boxer, she’s not bright enough to recognize there is a “mess”, much less a way to extracate herself.
There is white washing with a mop and then there is white washing with a boar bristle artist brush. Still white washing.
Some have claimed that the word “denier” is just a word and does not invoke the Holocaust. That is simply untrue. It was floated in climate debate to compare climate change denial with Holocaust denial (e.g. Hansen’s hyperbole comparing coal trains to Nazi death trains; see Andy (08:40:52)).
Now it has been incorporated into the wider debate. It includes not only those few who outright don’t believe in climate change, but also a rainbow of viewpoints, many not even truly skeptical. These viewpoints include those such as Pielke Sr.’s land use impact scenarios, Stephen Mosher’s non-skepticism (his beef is with the poor scientific methodology sometimes evident in climate science), Tom Fuller’s and Lucia Liljegren’s lukewarmer POVs, and even those people who are uncertain or don’t have an opinion.
The term “denier” has been used to paint all non-adherents of the CAGW party line. It is entirely a morality label with nothing to do with science and includes many who are not skeptical of most anthropogenic climate change science. And it is a conveniebt political tool being used by politicians in that age old, very successful strategy: dehumanize the opposition so that they can be marginalized, ignored, or worse.
The term “denier” is used to deny the labelled the same rights as the labeller.
Pamela Gray (10:13:47) “Without dust bowls, the fishing industry would completely disappear as mass extinctions become a sudden and permanent fixture of the oceanic landscape.”
I welcome the sharing of related links.
Patrick M. at CA said With Dr. Curry’s first post I was annoyed that she seemed only willing to go half way and was blaming “the skeptics” for the current situation. I think I am beginning to understand her approach. I’ve noticed that she is not speaking to the skeptics at all in her posts. She is speaking to her “tribe”. She knows they can’t swallow the whole truth at this point, so she appears to be luring them to the table with the face saving, it-is-the-only-way-to-get-rid-of-the-skeptics line. The fact that she made her appeal on ClimateAudit may be the only nod and wink she can give the skeptics at this point.
IMHO this is an important point. There is “tribalism” among readers of CA and WUWT just as in the climate science cabal, even if not nearly so bad. Plus, comments allowed by moderators can easily, by the best of visitors, be taken as the opinions of Anthony and Steve (and everyone else who posts here).
It’s very easy to slip into “tribal” language and I don’t want to cast stones at Judith for doing this herself, especially if her aim is to help open up dialogue. I would rather help facilitate a “meeting” where all sides are somehow obliged to attend and can put out their issues without fear of reprisal.
The term “denial” is also used in psychology/counselling/addiction treatment to describe a situation where “everyone else” can see a problem but the person who is being focussed on cannot or does not. I.e. they refuse to see “the truth”.
The implication is that there’s something seriously wrong and you are wilfully refusing to see it.
Recently, I’ve seen “the climate change denial industry”. I don’t know anybody that denys climate change!
I can deny that the Yankees won the World Series in 2009. I can deny that the Yankees will win the World Series in 2100. Two different things!
Best,
Frank
anonym (11:04:51) :
slow to follow (09:52:37):
Yes, this is the other side of the “denial” coin I think, and may be just as important. If you’ve read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, he credits the Frankfurt School of Marxists with inventing the much-loved tactic of “psychologisation” – explaining all ideological opposition to you as the result of psychological problems clouding your opponents’ minds. When Dr. Curry talks about her “quest to understand skeptics” it sounds as if the same game is being played.
This just reminded me that there was some U.K. “scholarly” attempt to study and identify the psychological pathology of AGW “deniers” this year. I wonder what has become of that?
Re: Lucy Skywalker (12:11:20)
My instinct is similar.
The problem is that a lot of contributors from the 2 extremes have a political interest in making sure middle-ground is no-man’s-land.
Venturing into the centre requires ability to withstand vicious stoning from both sides.
The message to bystanders is:
This is what will happen to you if you don’t commit to one of the opposing extremist factions.
In a way, it’s a horseshoe alliance that militantly resists balance & stability.
I see the Kultursmug as just too thick so as to make a path to simple coexistence almost impossible, let alone anything that looks like engagement.
The preferred, most accurate designation of those who question current climate change theory is CRITIC.
When I use the word denier I reserve it for the people who want to deny
access to code and data.
The salient aspect of holocaust denial is this: people denying something they know to be true. Every trained scientist knows that the foundation of scientific knowledge is reproducibility. And they know that in order to reproduce results one must share data and methods. So, when scientists make arguments as Jones did, that he won’t share data because his critics will use to just find mistakes then you have a class of denial on par with holocaust denial. He knows he must share data and code and yet refuses to.
Notice that no one on the other side of the fence has ever resorted to the opposite extreme of labelling anyone as a “collaborator.” One side has demonstrated significantly more class than the other and has done so for a long time. Curry’s latest gestures are welcome, but only a first step.
Free the code, free the data, free the metadata, and independent replication (not review) of all foundational data and studies are now the minimum standard. Everyone has lost their “trust me” privileges.
Myranda (12:22:46) :
Fine, as far as it goes. But they are not saying skeptics are “in denial”, they are specifically using the term “denier”. The choice is willful, and they know exactly what they are trying to convey with it.
Google: Goodman global warming deniers
If any “labels” should be used to describe those who are part of the proper scientific process, shouldn’t it be “Presenter” and “Questioner”?
In the “climate change” arena, a scientist presents data, information, a concept, etc. and other scientists question it. Is this not as it should be?
What we appear to have within the climate change discussion is a number of “Presenters” (primarily from the supporters of the AGW by CO2 concept) who have not been willing to make their data/methods available or transparent, are unwilling to clarify the uncertainties of what they present, refuse to engage in debate with the “questioners”, and have been caught more than once providing deliberately false and misleading information.
Worse, many of these “Presenters” are politically driven rather than science driven.
It is not the Questioners who are the problem, here. They might be, if the Presenters were conducting themselves properly, but until the Presenters do, the corruption of the scientific process is primarily the fault of the Presenters.
There will no doubt always be extremists of both Presenters and Questioners. They should be minimized and ignored as much as possible.
Proper science would mind our “Ps and Qs”.
“It is a characteristic of all movements and crusades that the psychopathic element rises to the top.” ~ Robert Lindner
But don’t let that deter you.
Perhaps some alternate, less biased lables could be proposed:
Climate progress obstructionists
Anthropogenic heat beasts
Climate evildoers
Gaia molesters
Weather villains
Sky killers
Meteorological monstrosities
John M (13:35:43) :
Actually, I agree with you. It seems like I didn’t make myself clear enough. I’m suggesting that the term has a negative/immoral connotation from a different field as well. In that context it tends to be rather shaming – at least that’s my experience – and often goes with guilt-laden questions about “what it’s doing to the family”, especially children. Sound familiar?
Maybe the AGW proponents were aware of this, maybe not. There have also been some rather controversial movements within the psychology/psychotherapy world, that have used the term to label anyone who didn’t agree with them. These also have had similar issues with differentiating between hard data (often not available) and the ideas existing in some person’s head.
Her comment was let through at Climate Progress, comment 93. But check out Joe Romm’s response, which includes:
“[JR: As I’ve blogged, those who deny basic climate science are quite different from the Holocaust deniers — but almost certainly more dangerous, since one denies past harms while the other encourages many future harms.
“Holocaust deniers” are denying an established fact from the past. If the media or politicians or the public took them at all seriously, I suppose it might increase the chances of a future Holocaust. But, in fact, they are very marginalized, and are inevitably attacked and criticized widely whenever they try to spread their disinformation, so they have no significant impact on society. The disinformers and delayers (and professional deniers), however, are very different and far more dangerous. They are trying to persuade people not to take action on a problem that has not yet become catastrophic, but which will certainly do so if we listen to them and delay acting much longer.]
It appears we are drifting from the crux of the matter. What criteria determines who can be termed a “Scientist”? Certainly not the Grand Inquisitors of AGW, who support their theory by derogatory name calling. They are merely defending their position of sucking on government sugar tits. I am sorely afraid they will be allow to continue, for their falsified theory allows a tat for tit, which governments can cite to tax the very air we breathe.
Its going to be an uphill battle.
Dr Curry, I imagine you will visit here to see the response to your letter so I’ll address this to you; I think Kate has, perhaps overly bluntly, made an important point. I’m not so concerned about the use of derogatory terms, but of the classification and vilification of political enemies purely on that basis, and about the aptness of terms used. It would seem from your own words that you are guilty of tribalism yourself. I hope this is an accident of your choice of words, as I sense a commitment to the integrity of science that resonates with me as a scientist (not a “climate scientist” — my PhD is in Mathematics).
If there is to be a tribal division to be made let us agree that it should be between science and politics, or rather between science politics that disguises itself as science or science that is wielded primarily as a political tool.
In this light, Kate’s final lines are of some importance. Al Gore is clearly the #1 proponent of AGW and the current round of proposed solutions to the problem. It would really help the situation if his unsuitability as a spokesperson for the SCIENCE of climate change were loudly repudiated by those working in the field, on all sides of this issue, not just as a matter of political partisanship.
But it is not just the opportunist, scientifically illiterate Gore (and many others like him) who is problematic, but those with genuine scientific heft who wield those credentials for political purposes in ways that clearly go beyond the bounds of propriety as defined within the “science tribe”. Besides from several names associated with the Climategate scandal, James Hansen’s name comes to mind.
If you’re going to bring out terms of vilification for those making a toxic mix of politics and science, I will cheer. But only if you apply these terms uniformly. Since your intended meaning of the term “denier” is not politically uniform it strikes me as appropriate. How about “pseudoscientific opportunists”? Doesn’t roll off the tongue as nicely but it lends itself to further qualifications such as “of all stripes”.
Roy Spencer makes the point on another WUTW thread that the term “climate change denier” is more appropriate for those (e.g., of IPCC ilk) who labour to deny the MWP or little ice age, the great climate changes of the recent holocene.
Prominent skeptics like Spencer, Pielke and McIntyre (and even, for that matter, most political proxies of the skeptical community) do not deny the reality of climate change — in contrast they generally promote the longstanding scholarly position on the holocene variability and generally do not deny the perfectly normal warming of the late 20th century. The term is simply inappropriate on all levels.
I would be interested, Dr. Curry, in your perspective on the status MWP and Little Ice Ages. The “science” pertaining to these is much older and well established than the recent highly politicized issues. Are you a “climate change denier”, too?
Anthony:
I GOT IT! Your comment about “haven’t seen the sun in days”..
HAH, you live in CA, virtually IMPOSSIBLE..
Except when you are inside making those 10,800,000 Google Hits on ClimateGate(TM).
The last time I checked, with standard seconds, you are creating over 5,000 “hits” per second. WOW, your typing speed is phenomenal.
(Wait, wait..don’t tell me…maybe OTHER people are creating this furor?)
Remember to get some sunlight, or you may be SAD!
Richard Sharpe said:
“So what about all the hoax-deniers?”
What a great term. I like it.
O/T
Has anyone else notice the addition of the requisite AGW prayer to any paper remotely connected to climate or even the environment. It is like the new science “open sesame” required for grant funding and publication in peer reviewed journals.
For example: A NASA on the lack of sunspots states:
“But is it supposed to be this quiet? In 2008, the sun set the following records:
A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth.
A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other significant side-effects: Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated less by the sun and it is therefore less “puffed up.” http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
Note the required half hearted blurb on global warming “…The changes so far are not enough to reverse the course of global warming…” A statement that has nothing to do with the main topic of the article.
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (10:33:22) :
“Just like using the word Warmongers?”
the preferred spelling is with two M’s, meaning that they’re mongering warmism.
slow to follow (09:52:37) :
“In the context of “man made global warming” I have also seen the term “denier” evolve based on those who do not accept the science as true as “being in denial”. IMO this is meant to say it is just a stage on a “psychological” journey on which the enlightened “believers” have already travelled.”
I think this was mostly what was/is intended, and that the warmists would be using the epithet even more if there had never been a Holocaust denial movement. If the other side wants to switch to denialist, that would be OK, since it would pretty much eliminate the objectionable connotation denier has.
Oops–last paragraph (by me) shouldn’t be italicized.
Bird Stewart Lightfoot (13:12:57) :
“The preferred, most accurate designation of those who question current climate change theory is CRITIC.”
Yes indeed–I floated that suggestion here a week or two ago. (I think I may have said “climate change critic,” which has alliteration.) It’s a term midway between skeptic and denier.
William Tyndall; (c. 1494 – 1536) was a 16th-century Protestant reformer and scholar who translated considerable parts of the Bible into Early Modern English (the language of his day). He drew directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, rather than Latin translations. His translation was the first to take advantage of the new medium of print enabling its wide distribution.
In 1535 Tyndall was arrested and jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde near Brussels for over a year. Subsequently, Tyndall was tried for heresy and burned at the stake. He was strangled before his body was burnt.
“I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, I will cause the boy that drives the plough to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope himself!”
The King James Bible, published four years after Tyndall’s execution, drew heavily on Tyndall’s work.
Sceptics/denialists/critics/heretics [delete whichever is inapplicable] want access to the original data sources, rather than dubious interpretations, for any who want to make up their own minds. The IPCC “Papacy” denies access to the original data sources because we aren’t worthy. If the data says what the “Papacy” says it does, what is the “Papacy” afraid of?
History, as ever, repeats itself — hopefully not too closely on this occasion.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.” — Thomas Aquinas
One little side note; one thing that struck me about the hacked emails was the fact that Jones, Mann and others in their group decidedly did NOT use the term “denier”, even when they thought they were alone. If the term was in there anywhere, I missed it. They referred to McIntyre and others, properly, as skeptics. This tells me that Curry is a very political animal, using very political language in a very deliberate way. When they don’t talk like this in the climate alarmist “locker room”, that leads inevitably to the conclusion that this is deliberate inflammatory language for public consumption.
The word to replace “deniers” is “Questioners”. That will infuriate the AGW crowd, but the term is accurate. Just think how many questions have been asked and not answered. How many times have Steve Mc and associates asked or (questioned) for data and codes and been “deniered”
Roger Knights (15:42:15) :
“Yes indeed–I floated that suggestion here a week or two ago. (I think I may have said “climate change critic,” which has alliteration.) It’s a term midway between skeptic and denier.”
I didn’t see your earlier suggestion, but I agree, Climate Change Critic is the term to use.
I don’t think it is really between skeptic and denier, since these terms suggest opposition. Criticism suggests analysis and evaluation of the attributes of the theory, a search for truth, and could result is either approval or disapproval.
rabidfox said
rabidfox (10:11:50) :
“Short sighted” would be a better description of the MSM. Here we have a scandal that is big — much bigger than Watergate! It spreads from the UN itself all the way to small countries like New Zeland. This is the story of the century, Pulitzer material (if covered correctly) and the MSM – ALL the MSM are ignoring it!
Just in case you were not aware, the MSM has been owned by the bankers here in the USA since 1917.
U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947
“….In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.
“These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.” http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Morgan-Buys-Newspapers9feb17.htm
Then there is the Rockefeller/ Morgan connection through Chase Bank and the Rockefeller/Maurice Strong connection through the Rockefeller foundations (Strong is a trustee) Oil, Strong worked for a Rockefeller company and the World Bank. Strong of course started the whole “global Warming ” Crusade in 1972 at the first UN earth summit.
I would expect the MSM to continue to completely ignore the whole situation. They have ignored the fact that the last ten years of increased food poisoning in the USA is directly attributable to the 1996 HACCP regs turning responsiblity for food testing over to corporations while government labs are shut down. If two congressional investigations and a woman’s death due to deliberate inaction by the USDA does not wake up the mass media a few e-mails released by a whistleblower aren’t going to do it. The woman’s death/USDA/ConAgra story was covered and written up by a New York City reporter and then suppressed by the papers owner.
We are bucking big money and our only weapon is word of mouth and the internet.
Pamela Gray (10:13:47) :
“One more time. Weather pattern shifts that coincided with and were secondary to Pacific oceanic conditions caused the dust bowl…. The American dust bowl happened right on schedule and in accord with natural weather pattern variations.”
Do you have any idea of when we can expect another dust bowl? or change in rain patterns? As a farmer that bit of information is of real interest to me.
I would say corrupt would be a better term for the MSM, the Sun was the main mover for Blair’s landslide victory, they slandered Bush at the drop of a hat, etc,etc they might as well have Goebbel’s ghost editing their stuff. As for us, critics works for me, I was questioning back along but when faced with the outrageous corruption and lies that the AGW promoters resorted to my questions were answered, now I am a critic.
Wow folks.
I can ratchet up the rhetorical argument ongoing here by coining a new term: Climate Change Infidel. If someone has already used the term in a serious way, they have my sincere and disgusted apology for claiming to have coined it. It cleverly implies that the catastrophic global warming “tribe” (props to Dr. Curry) is practicing religion rather than science. It also implies a frightening amount of zealotry is involved. If you take an expansive view of the implication of the term, it implies that it’s just fine to kill those that disagree with you. But of course it’s nothing more than a rhetorical tool.
I agree with the few here that have commented that a good start to reconciliation in this mess would be to stop labeling each other.
I have to say though, that when things reach the heated proportions of this particular issue or for that matter the issues related to the use of the term Infidel, we would all be wise to simply fall back on the rule of law. You can take what you will from that with regard to the broader issues around the term Infidel. In the specific (and if I’m honest, somewhat less urgent) discussion ongoing around Climategate, it’s clear that individuals that conspire to obstruct FOIA requests and that ask their colleagues to delete information subject to same should be prosecuted.
OA
Words are interesting,
Mike Bryant (08:55:50), you mentioned denier in relation to fabrics. As a youngster I remember my mother talking about denier in stockings as in “these stockings are 15 denier” as in den-ee-er not den-eye-er.
This from Answers……..
den·ier2 (dən-yā’) pronunciation
n.
1. (also dĕn’yər) A unit of fineness for rayon, nylon, and silk fibers, based on a standard mass per length of 1 gram per 9,000 meters of yarn.
2. (also də-nîr’)
1. A small coin of varying composition and value current in western Europe from the eighth century until the French Revolution.
2. Archaic. A small, trifling sum.
My dictionary (Oxford Concise) says a den-eye-er is one who denies (declare untrue or non-existent,be abstinent,refuses access to).
I have thought that, if you can deny, why not become a denyer instead of denier. All these years, when I see denier I see den-ee-er.
Dang ! Just can’t get deny outa ma head……………
How about denihilist. More fitting label…
“I can ratchet up the rhetorical argument ongoing here by coining a new term: Climate Change Infidel.”
Or hot-air heretic. (There are threads from 6 months or so back where lots of proposed names were thrown into the mix.)
It seems to me that we’re getting into sophistry, here, exploring fine shades of meaning of words and how they can distort the truth.
But the vital truth is that socialists, in their pursuit of Utopian societies, have so far murdered 120,000,000 human beings–not one, but twenty Holocausts. We are now facing the advent of global Socialism, armed with superior technology, including computers. Think about that. Imagine two hundred Holocausts.
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”–Churchill
I’m contacting everyone I know and telling them the truth about AGW. I will lose some friends over this. But the time to pull out all the stops is now, not after Copenhagen. All leftist organizations have lined up many sheep to put pressure on the Senate to ratify the Treaty ASAP. That must be stopped, even if it means going door to door this week and dropping off flyers to counter the coming Socialist media blitz.
Gail Combs (17:28:32) “Do you have any idea of when we can expect another dust bowl? or change in rain patterns? As a farmer that bit of information is of real interest to me.”
Great question.
In my mind there can be no question that figuring out every nuance of the terrestrial hydrologic cycle should immediately take front & center stage in climatology & related interdisciplinary fields. [Just so it’s crystal clear to everyone: I’m categorically not calling for even a single superconfuser fantasy based on untenable assumptions.]
Thank you for the interesting notes which you often share Gail.
Yes, there has been a deviation of the word to associate it with holocaust denial, but I always understood it to refer to the psychological state of being “in denial” of an unpleasant fact that one does not want to face up to (head in the sand). This sort of argument against scepticism would lead rather to locking deniers in mental institutions, a common Soviet method of quashing dissent (I was told in Moscow that it happened to Gargarine).
Also, let us not forget forget that many AGW sceptics have been “denied” access to publication.
Here’s another one I like. It goes beyond “critic” in capturing our embattled minority position, and it’s a bit more appropriate than “climate critic,” which on its face implies that we’re criticizing the climate: “Climate Contrarian.”
“Climate Curmudgeon” is another possibility.
A major argument of ‘climate change deniers’ is that the climate is always changing. Go figure, as the Americans say….
In contrast, one could make a case that the flat part of the hockey stick is the very essence of climate change denial.
Chris
I prefer the term denialologist…. or denialosophist… and where can one apply for one of these cushy jobs as a professional denialologist?
Global warming is a huge cult, not a religion, although the UK PC police have alotted it religious status in employment tribunals.
It is intresting tha JP Morgan connection has popped up, these hyper bankers seem to be behind a lot of mischief and suffering in their quest to control the world. Does this mean A Gore is a “tool” I would guess G Soros is a player here, the real devil here is socialism. It looks like the Illuminati have come out at last, good thing is, IF we get past this we have a spot on way to identify the bad guys as most have shown their colours, we have been lucky with the weather though, if it had kept warming who would have believed the truth?
Apologies to Anthony, but Dr Curry’s posts are cow-pies with thin layers of post-modern chocolate-icing applied to make them look palatable.
It’s always sad when someone dives into the linguistics pool without a diphthong or a morphology to help them remain afloat.
“Denier” is merely a person who denies. No one will remove this word from my vocabulary by attaching modern significance to its use. I’ve had enough of PC speech created by mostly morons without any historical perspectives.
Another point on the word “denier” is that in many countries it is, despicably, illegal to “deny the holocaust”. Denial there includes a study of the historical facts which draws conclusion that are at odds with the government approved conclusions.
Perhaps the AGW lobby want to eventually make it illegal to “deny AGW” in the same sense? The AGW lobby are indeed proving, as many have accused, that the “Holocaust Denial” laws are the thin end of the wedge.
I too was not at all impressed by Dr Curry’s letter. The letter read entirely as if she was a one way filter. Not open to learn from sceptics but convinced that their view is solely based on misinformation.
Is 1 woman going to rule the world?
The Holocaust is NOT the only time millions have been systematically exterminated (which is very sad), Mao is credited with some 60-80 million deaths…tyranny of any sort is unacceptable.
We should be able to use the word “denier” if we find it the best to express our position.
There may be better terms?
Pompous Git’s reference to William Tyndall is ironic, given the following:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/About/Who-was-John-Tyndall
(I’m not sure of the exact relationshop between the Tyndall Centre and the CRU; clearly they are related, but are not one and the same thing).
DISSENTERS!!! DIOXIDE DISSENTERS!! That’s a D-word we can live with! How about it, gang?
The word “deniers” was a despicable rhetorical tool designed to lump people who questioned the validity of “settled science” around catastrophic anthropomorphic global climate change nee warming with people who denied the Holocaust or deny the validity of Evolutionary theory. It is a reprehensible debate tactic, one that would be totally unnecessary if the CAGW case was as cut and dry as claimed to be by the likes of Al Gore.
Given the revelations of the CRU leak, my opinion is that anybody who could still believe that CAGW is still settled science are not scientists at all but religionists. They’ve arrived at their place of happy certainty, and they don’t plan to leave no matter what valid, alternative conclusions are thrown at them. In that sense, they are actually the ones very much in the same psychological category as 9/11 “truthers”, Holocaust deniers, and extreme religious fundamentalists.
Why do colleges and universities still have “Climate Science” departments if the “science is settled” ? Why do they keep funding CRU ?
With reference to the word,”deniers”, the Warmies like to call the realists so with reference to Holocaust Deniers. However the real “deniers,” WITHOUT reference to the Holocaust, are really the Warmies (or Alarmists) because they deny the real science and accept the pseudo-science od the IPCC.
i hope that this message is clear and understandable
Lets not forget that there was a Consensus by smug/elite/wealthy/white people that Slavery was legal because some people were Real-Humans and ERGO…..didn’t fall under any of the rules for Science that defined intelligence
which separated Humans from the animals.
We now have NEW smug/elite/white/liberals wanting to enslave everyone on Earth that doesn’t think as they do , the plan appears to be to make everyone poor and stupid which increases the Death rate to purge us of the weak and unproductive.
Gee, poor Al Gore won’t have any skilled workers to fix his houses or repair his private jet because nobody will want to do a Trades-Job for the same wage as a worker harvesting Coffee beans for the smug elite to have a drink with breakfast while the rest of us eke out an existance.