Climate "Dismissive": The New PC Term for "Denier"

The slight walk back to dismissive is calculated by the embarrassment to main stream culture of calling someone a “Holocaust Denier” over a political dispute.
What goes on in small academic circles is transformed as the debate is mainstreamed to the larger electorate. The move isn’t sincere and more a cover up of the hate culture of the Green left base.

Word capture and destruction has a long leftist heritage. Nothing worse then the current use of the word “science” as a accusatory term at those who oppose ones political policy dressed as “science”. In the common left culture at the street level the GOP must of course be “anti-science” while the collectivist climate advocate wing are “pro-science” in their group think fashion.
In the early Clinton Presidency there was a huge word play effort regarding “fairness” which meant rationalizing tax-increases. The MSM went into overdrive on the use and social definitions to support “fairness” and again any opposition was of course labeled? Right “unfairness”! It lingers to this day but was obsessive in the early 90’s.
Something more obscure to illustrate again; When the Soviet was falling a legislature was formed during the Yeltsin crisis years. The American media in particular went to the trouble of creating a word convention to label the old Soviet Communist hard line wing of that assembly as “Right Wingers” again as a pejorative to those who supported individual rights in the West and the U.S.. For hundreds of years the coding of left and right was derived from the French tradition of assembly. Those most associated to social revolution and radicalism, collectivists and communist as we would modernly label them sat on the left side of the assembly. Conservatives, perhaps monarchists, would sit to the right of the parliamentary assembly. Of course the Soviet “hardliners” were by in large of the old state communist variety yet American leftist media created their own convention of calling them illogically “Right Wingers”. It was done for a propaganda purpose. Word dishonesty is nothing new and if you read a high school text book regarding this historical period you can well find the word convention smear of those years still conveyed. The irony and scope is chilling.
So while Hayhoe is a tool and the pejorative substitution seems obscure, unlikely or laughable there is a broader cultural implication about word conventions and about what is accepted and what should be rejected. Every time you see the term applied, “denier” it should be immediately referenced to “Holocaust Denier” which often leads to back tracking and equivocation of the proponents of AGW orthodoxy using the term. Moderate debate observers, at least some, realize the fanaticism of the application. So does Hayhoe who might not ever be less fanatical but realizes the tactical need for the word re-write and is making her case. Whatever the word that is ultimately chosen will ultimately become the same authoritarian code as “denier” which means “Holocaust Denier”. It should always be contested aggressively which in part why Hayhoe’s actions can viewed as a form of capitulation. The “Denier” smear is failing and as the public debate broadens in scale it looks even more difficult to maintain and support the pejorative’s of the core AGW community. This is a benefit of a broader public debate and an example of how small specialized debate culture changes for a larger anticipated audience.
“Denier” should never be forgotten. It should always be pointed out in public debates as it ultimately defines the nature (totalitarian) of the at large AGW advocate culture and community.