re: #91 WindUpBird

You guys defending the use of the “denier” smear are as literalist as Southern Baptists when it suits you:

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.

If, like me, you adopt a virtue or duty ethic, but one tempered by consideration of the consequences of an act, climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous.

David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial. Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence - it is a crime against humanity after all.

I put this in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.

Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech:
The demonisation of ‘climate change denial’ is an affront to open and rational debate.

More seriously, they began to express their conviction as an ideology, and treat those who dissented as heretics. Thus arose the widely-used phrase “climate deniers”, which, with its evocations not only of heresy but also of Holocaust denial, seems to me inappropriate; I have never used it.

Like I said on another thread. Argue with skeptics all you like, call bullshit, bullshit, but you guys are really discrediting yourselves a la Godwin’s law and losing the moral high ground in the process.
But hey, if you really think moonbat rheortic with antisemetic connotations is going to change minds, keep going, it’s seems to be working so far…