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.
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.