In Denial Over the Word "Denial"

A damn fine contribution to the global alarming debate over at Vox Nova:

Irenaeus Says:

September 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

MM et al.,

Y’all know how much I enjoy VN, even when it frosts me. But I gotta say, I’m pissed. We who think global warming, if occurring to whatever degree, is not caused by humankind are not hyper-capitalist obscurantists blind to the summer sun. We have damn good reasons for being suspicious of the grandiose claims of those demanding immediate and severe action to curb global warming, both scientific and cultural. Scientifically, it looks to us like the sun and not CO2 is causing whatever warming is happening. Culturally, we’re pretty postmodern in recognizing that most truth claims, irrespective of their truth or falsity, are made in the service of power. And here we see a certain section of people who seem to be wielding global warming as a weapon to advance large-government agendas.

And I gotta side with Donald on this. Being a keen student of language and rhetoric, it seems to me that calling one a /global warming denier/ evokes the phrase ‘holocaust denier.’ Can we really think of any other construction with currency in contemporary conversation that includes /[noun]-denier/? Maybe I’m overlooking something, but I don’t think so. The word is so unique it can only call up the phrase /holocaust-denier/.

And so I think such people who use that term can, in my best British vernacular, piss off. I’ve been to Dachau, Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen. Comparing us to the Nazis because we have serious, honestly held qualms about the validity of the issue and its use in political discourse is unmitigated BS.

In fact, it’s folks who are severely concerned about global warming who risk acting as Nazis, who made great advances in contraception, sterilization and abortion science. It’s no secret that many in the environmental movement consider people the problem, and thus birth control and abortion are a major part of the remedy. (Check this out from that right-wing rag, Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2173458/) Maybe Catholics and other traditional Christians who consider openness to life and rejection of abortion and infanticide constitutive of Christian identity should be more suspicious.

Further, and finally, those of us suspicious of the socio-politico-cultural-ideological juggernaut that is the global warming machine are not in principle opposed to environmental protections and good stewardship. Many of us would love it if there was better air in cities, if Big Food would stop poisoning the populace with high-fructose corn syrup and trans fats, if corporations were concerned with humanity’s well being, etc etc. In fact, if the global-warming nuts would concentrate their efforts on local and regional issues, they’d get more traction, get more accomplished and, in doing so, probably have made strides against the specter of global warming in the process (if, indeed, we’re causing any of it at all).

OK, off to pray the Angelus to settle down…

(emphasis added)

Yeah, what Irenaeus said.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Malthusian Nonsense from "Global Warming" Alarmists

Manly Men Don't Go in for Global Warming Hysteria

“Criminalizing Political Differences”

Is Global Warming Skepticism a Mortal Sin?

Cardinal Pell on Global Warming Alarmists: "Scaremongers" and "Zealots"