Why terms like "climate change denialist" are very bad propaganda. Brendan O'Neill writes
The demonisation of 'climate change denial' is an affront to open and rational debate.
He quotes someone who wants to make climate change denial an offence and someone else who wants "some sort of climate Nuremberg." The Nuremberger has since retracted it - see
here - but there are
plenty of other people about using the terms climate change "denialist" or "denier" in an effort to make them sound equivalent to the likes of David Irving. Those who use these terms generally say they don't intend to make this parallel. I don't believe them.
More to the point, I believe in climate change less because of them.
In case you're wondering, I do largely believe in climate change - but that belief is second hand. Nothing wrong with that, most of everybody's beliefs are second hand. We accept the consensus of experts. (I don't really want to get into a discussion of the role of consensus in science, or the issues of whether climate change is happening, is anthropogenic, or might actually be a good thing. Being able to spell "anthropogenic" is effort enough.) The consensus convinces because there is no good reason to suppose that so many eminent scientists are lying or deceiving themselves when they say climate change is happening. But if you give me cause to believe that departure from the consensus gets a person ostracised, then there is a good reason.
posted by Natalie at 10:52 PM