While I personally don't use the term "denier" in my writing on climate issues, I'm not moved by the crocodile tears of many who claim to be offended by it. Why? Well, I could point to a few loaded, pejorative terms commonly used at popular climate skeptic websites. But to understand the hypocrisy I'm getting at, let's go to this new Fred Singer post at American Thinker, which starts off (emphasis added):
Global warming has re-entered public consciousness in recent days, partly because of the buzz surrounding the release of warming results from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. The reaction of the "warmistas" has been jubilant, yet hilariously wrong. Will they ever learn?
Do you get the association implied here? Let me just say that as a huge Clash fan I resent this effort to despoil my memory of a treasured boyhood album. But I digress. A few paragraphs down, Singer says something I agree with (emphasis added):
Unfortunately, it has become expedient (for those who condemn CO2 as the cause of warming) to deride their opponents with terms like "climate deniers."
Alas, the self-proclaimed global warming "doubter" doesn't see when he's being expedient, for just two paragraphs later, we come to this (emphasis added):
Their hearts filled with bubbling joy and their brains befuddled, none of the warmistas have apparently listened to the somewhat skeptical pronouncements from Prof. Muller.
In case you weren't getting the message, a little further down, Singer writes (emphasis added):
None of the warmistas can explain why the climate hasn't warmed in the 21^st century, while CO2 has been increasing rapidly. It's no wonder that Herman Cain, a former math and computer science major in college, says that "man-made global warming is poppycock" (NYT, Nov. 12). He blames climate fears on "scientists who tried to concoct the science" and "were busted because they tried to manipulate the data."