I see via Andrew Bolt's blog that Julie Bishop has a column in the Age in which she rails against members of the Coalition being called "deniers" by - (wait for it) - quoting some scientists who deny there is a problem with global warming.
So much for Tony Abbot's party room strategy, which he broke first himself, of not questioning the science but just attacking the tax.
All very droll, if you ask me.
UPDATE: I've often wondered about the use of "denier" myself. There is no doubt at all that a significant fraction of those on the climate change sceptic side do not believe in it on purely ideological grounds, because they rehash continually arguments which even cursory thought (or cursory Googling) should have otherwise lead them to abandon long ago. (The argument from incredulity is perhaps the best example: "that tiny fraction of the atmosphere can cause that much trouble?! Bah, I don't believe it".) It seems to me that something stronger than "skeptic" is needed for that group.
On the other hand, I reckon that there has been a trajectory over the last few years, evident from blogs like Watts Up With That and others, for the main bulk of climate change scepticism to move from arguing that the temperature record does not really show modern warming (probably because their pet projects in that regard have failed) to the position of grudging acknowledgement that the world is warming, but not at a rate large enough to be a worry.
These people (the "lukewarmenists") don't deny climate change, and may agree that CO2 has probably caused it, although they may still deny that projections of future temperature increases (or sea level rise) can be given any credence as the basis of policy.
That's the problem with "denier". Different people "deny" different things. I don't think it really does invoke the Holocaust denying stigma to any greatly offensive degree. For one thing, it's been a long time since Holocaust denial was really a big cultural issue - David Irving must be getting on in age. I doubt younger folk automatically think of the connection when they hear "denier". But it's probably too blanket a word to cover the slippery world of the "inactionists."
(Has anyone used that before? Google seems to suggest not. It's pretty good.)
2 comments:
She's referring to the totalitarian like language being used to shut down disagreement, you rancid turkey
How, pray tell, does it "shut down disagreement."?
It ridicules the argument that there is much in the way of coherent, anti-AGW science out there (yes, we all know there's a handfull of climate scientists complaining that everybody else is wrong. Their arguments are not be winning over the bulk of scientists because they are not actually good arguments.)
But it does nothing to stop inactionists running their inactionist arguments.
Post a Comment