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.
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.