And we're not talking sustainable fisheries. A diversion from the moribund GW debate. Readers with nothing better to do may have spotted the likes of Blaster, Eternal and Dim frequently crib, I mean source their talking points from the site WattsUpWithThat, run by distinguished climate scientist and retired TV weatherman Anthony Watts.
Finally Mr Watts is attempting to raise the tone of the debate. In practical terms this means he has renamed his 'Al Gore is an Idiot' blog category to just plain 'Al Gore'. Thus in possession of the high ground he has requested the site 'Sceptical Science' to cease using the term 'denier', as in one who denies the evidence for Global Warming.
So far so good. Labels add nothing to a debate, even if Watts is attempting a distraction - he can't fault the science so he goes after the langauge - and playing the faux victim card.
But where it gets entertaining is the desperate gyrations in attempting to prove that the word 'denier' means more than just 'someone who denies' and is in fact inextricably linked to 'holocaust denier'. In search of proof Watts logs into Google Books and does a temporal distribution plot (or ngram) of the word 'denier' in literature, and asks that we:
But then, a commenter capable of joining the dots points out ....
Heh. Not often I recommend WUWT but the back-pedalling, side-pedalling and reverse-peddalling of Anthony and his chorus are one of the most entertaining things on the 'net right now. Get yourself a coffee and read the whole thread, its up to 280 comments and someone just brought in the KKK ....
A modest proposal to Skeptical Science | Watts Up With That?
Finally Mr Watts is attempting to raise the tone of the debate. In practical terms this means he has renamed his 'Al Gore is an Idiot' blog category to just plain 'Al Gore'. Thus in possession of the high ground he has requested the site 'Sceptical Science' to cease using the term 'denier', as in one who denies the evidence for Global Warming.
So far so good. Labels add nothing to a debate, even if Watts is attempting a distraction - he can't fault the science so he goes after the langauge - and playing the faux victim card.
But where it gets entertaining is the desperate gyrations in attempting to prove that the word 'denier' means more than just 'someone who denies' and is in fact inextricably linked to 'holocaust denier'. In search of proof Watts logs into Google Books and does a temporal distribution plot (or ngram) of the word 'denier' in literature, and asks that we:
Note the sharp peak right around WWII and afterwards, as books and stories were written about people who denied the horrible atrocities ever happened. No clearer connection between WWII atrocities denial and the word “denier” by itself could possibly exist. It’s a hockey stick on the uptake.
Anthony – the peak of ‘denier’ correlates with the introduction of the term ‘nylons’
A modest proposal to Skeptical Science | Watts Up With That?
Comment