Climate change terms
Redaktøren for The Guardian's har netop udstedt disse nye retningslinjer til alle medarbejdere om sproget der skal bruges når der skrives om klimaet og om miljøet...og det er 100% alarm-isme. Ikke noget med at holde tilbage, fordi det er en krise, så lad os starte med at skrive som det værende en sådan! Josh hjælper os med at forstå meddelelsen.

Guardian new language on climate change

Kommentar: Delvis oversat til dansk af fra: The Guardian Officially Goes Full Climate Alarmist Language

HT/Willie Soon via Leo Hickman

Josh has interpreted this new policy:

Guardian language change policy cartoon
© CartoonsbyJosh
James Delingpole notes:

"There is, in essence, no such thing is a 'climate science denier' because not even the most ardent sceptic denies the existence of 'climate science'.

Even more problematic is that use of the word 'denier', which implicitly invokes the Holocaust - and in doing so, weirdly and irresponsibly puts 'being sceptical about anthropogenic global warming' in the same category as 'denying that Hitler murdered six million Jews.'

In recent years, climate alarmists have tried to backtrack on the origins of the 'denier' slur by pretending that they never intended to invoke Holocaust denial.

But here is Guardian environment journalist George Monbiot writing in 2006:
Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.
Maybe Ms Viner should pay more attention to Thomas Sowell on this subject:
"The next time someone talks about "climate change deniers," ask them to name one - and tell you just where specifically you can find their words, declaring that climates do not change. You can bet the rent money that they cannot tell you.

Why all this talk about these mythical creatures called "climate change deniers"? Because there are some meteorologists and other scientists who refuse to join the stampede toward drastic economic changes to prevent what others say will be catastrophic levels of "global warming."

There are scientists on both sides of that issue. Presumably the issue could be debated on the basis of evidence and analysis. But this has become a political crusade, and political issues tend to be settled by political means, of which demonizing the opposition with catchwords is one."
Sowell's point is well made - and goes to the heart of what is wrong with the Guardian's new lexicon for its climate change reportage.

The Guardian is tacitly admitting that this is not an argument it is capable of winning on the science or indeed the facts. Therefore, it has decided to ramp up the rhetoric instead."