However, they are the ones who deny that the earth is cooling.
They are the ones denying that their movement is bankrupt.
They are the ones denying that the Sun has the greatest influence.
They are the ones denying that even Phil Jones and James Hansen said the earth was cooling.
They are the ones denying Mann lied.
They re the ones who deny that 1934 was hotter than 1998.
They are the ones who deny science and substitute name calling.
The are the ones who deny a respondent is right even when it is proven that the respondent is 100% right.
They even deny the term 'denier' is derogatory, unless you call one of them that.
It is a childish term and I consider it a badge of honor when people of such ignorance call me any name that distinctly identifies me as not one of them.
The unfortunate fact is that nobody cares except the people who are being called deniers and they are attempting to make the term politically incorrect. I personally don't consider you a denier and I don't link it to holocaust denial myself...denial is a psychological phenomenon that has been studied for many decades and that is the way I relate to it. And in some corners-including you, I don't recall you engaging in calling other people names...so you certainly have more right to complain about it than some. Myself, I would much rather engage in dialogue about the issue of climate change itself than head down the sad path politics and this entire forum has gone, which is basically a name-calling match with very little substance.
And that is really the larger point. Although there is plenty-and I think excessive-use of the denier label here, the opposition view is certainly no innocent victim of name-callers, there has been and continues to be an awful lot of name-calling on both sides, so it is more than a little disingenuous for either side to complain about it.
Perhaps rather than complaining about name-calling, the opposing views could argue about who started it. That would be almost as productive as the complaining.
There are some people who are, at least on occasion, using "denier" with the intent to draw parallels to Holocaust deniers. Most people, however, are simply using the word with its literal meaning, "person who denies something". Even the people who occasionally draw that parallel are usually just using the word with its literal meaning...
But, to avoid the "You're comparing us to people who deny the Holocaust!" BS, I tend to use the term "denialist" instead.
There is one phrase to describe the claim that denialists are being called holocaust deniers; STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.
As a conservative, I have seen that insults are political tactics. Those that can't win arguments insult and suggest that their opponents are bigots, homophobes, sexists, and want to pollute the environment. That was Obama's primary strategy. Republicans are scared to death to be called racists or sexist or whatever so the tactic works. If you reward childish behavior, it encourages it and unfortunately people don't seem to have the courage to stand up to it. Denier is just another bullying tactic by those who can't win a argument so resort instead to insults.
In case I need a reference from an expert, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, PhD in Psychiatry who happens to be Jewish, Pulitzer Prize winner, believes they are making that comparison (that is my reference).
<<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/c...
They are totally unrelated. There is however a link between "denial" and conspiracy theorists. The whole shebang is explained at: http://jcmooreonline.com/2014/03/03/clim...
Who denies the Holocaust? Maybe the number of deaths but other then that. It is no comparison
You know what they say. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
0.8 degrees of warming over the last 100 years is going to lead to the end of humanity. It doesn't even make sense. It is a HUGE load of BS, that one can only sell by attacking all who disagree with labels like "Nazi". Its McCarthyism all over again.
Even without the reference to Nazis, it still smacks of ad hominem and begging the question. It goes along with that ideology that the debate is over. Of course, this is the only brand of "science" in which they entirely close debates. It is funny that it is one of the newest forms of "science" and the debate is already over.
It's blatantly obvious they want to link "Climate Change Denier" to "Holocaust Denier". I actually find it amusing myself because it illustrates how utterly pathetic alarmists are.
it's plainly obvious that MMGW enthusiasts have lost the debate.
by resorting to nazi comparisons, they expose the intellectual impotence of the whole MMGW fraud.
Here is a collection of quotes: http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html
If you have a case that "climate change denier" is not referring to the holocaust, please go ahead and make it.
