And in both cases, the connotative power of the word “denier” was so weak the authors had to explain what they were talking about. The word all by itself wasn’t sufficient.

Before you were saying that the word “denier” was so readily associated with Holocaust deniers that it shouldn’t be used to describe anyone else.

Now you seem to be saying that because Ellen Goodman used it to equate Holocaust deniers with global warming skeptics, the meaning of the word is forever changed.

What a malleable language you speak.

Then blame Mr. Webster.

And yes you are disingenuous on ‘denier’.

Enjoy.

Cute.

You can argue that the evidence supporting global warming is bogus, yet turn around and say “Golly, I don’t know.”

Wait. You’re saying the word was invented just to describe Holocaust revisionists?

Funny. If you look up the word in Webster’s it doesn’t say a thing about WWII.

Most of the adults here can distinguish between the two and see no real connection.
Like Saddam and AQ.

Apple, meet orange.

Zython, you forgot these;

4. Al Gore flies on private jets.
5.Michael Moore is fat.

You assume I haven’t. An ideologue of any stripe is likely an unreliable source of information. Remember,my position is that I don’t know (but I don’t think you or ‘the consensus’ know, either) not that it isn’t happening.

And for my $0.02, your discussion of ‘denier’ seems a little calculating. I could give examples but I have no wish to insult. We’re adults here. We know why the word ‘denier’ came in to being and is used.

Google. Ever hear of it?

As for the rest:
I have doubts about ‘global warming’s’ duration, origins, permanency, and criticality.

That’s because of who you read and believe. I’ll wager that the sources you cite are far more likely to shape their beliefs to their ideology than those who think warming is real and human-caused.

And I am suspicious when the primary debate motif is ridcule, threat and intimidation.

I think that’s overstated. The ridicule is mostly among people debating the issue at our level–you know, wise guys posting on blogs. Threat and intimidation? You’re on about that weather guy again, aren’t you?

And I am always a little suspicious of any scientific or hsitorical finding so heavily vested in political ideology.

Then you ought to be taking a really hard look at the people who say it ain’t so.

A. It doesn’t fit. I don’t ‘deny’ global warming. I believe we have heated up about one degree. But I say we don’t if its permanent or how much is man made versus natural.

B. It is not quite like you to be so say ‘sneaky.’ Do you truly consider the use of the epithet “denier” to be a coincidence? Do you consider it a good faith debate technique.

I give you the liberal Ellen Goodman:

“I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

“David Roberts wrote of global warming “deniers”: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*****ds–some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

I firmly believe the Holocaust happened. Seems rather obvious to me. I have doubts about ‘global warming’s’ duration, origins, permanency, and criticality. And I am suspicious when the primary debate motif is ridcule, threat and intimidation. And I am always a little suspicious of any scientific or hsitorical finding so heavily vested in political ideology.

Because it fits?

Deny:
1 : to declare untrue
2 : to refuse to admit or acknowledge : DISAVOW
3 a : to give a negative answer to b : to refuse to grant c : to restrain (oneself) from gratification of desires
4 archaic : DECLINE
5 : to refuse to accept the existence, truth, or validity of

That’s good. A variation on the “teach the controversy” defense, eh?

Mathematicians who think the outcome of 2 + 2 is “still open to debate” are promoting a false controversy and don’t deserve a platform among reasonable people.

I’m not the one advocating the invasion of Pakistan. You are, ya chickenhawk!

I actually did address the point you made – in response to Jack Larson.

The basic answer is that yeah many of the ‘global warming’ initiatives are just fine in isolation: conservation, etc. But some are not at all fine – like Kyoto. Its up there if you read.

Archie

A couple of problems with your post. Who counted the percentage and came up with 95%. What did you mean by relevant scientists. How about the long, long list up above. Are they all in the 5%? Where’s the list? Why do you use the term ‘denier’, Archie? Is it because you think those who think the science is not settled are equivalent to Holocaust deniers?

“but none with the speed of the current one, and none with so clear a link to the man-made increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

You make my point in spades. The current change, whatever it is, is ongoing, we have no idea how long it will last and if it will intensify. So most of what you said is conjecture or what liberals call ‘settled science’.

And linkage to greenhouse gases proves nothing. Water vapor is far the number one greenhouse gas. And ‘link’? Really. Thats how Dick Cheney described Iraq and AQ and progressives had a hissy fit.