If you’ve ever had the misfortune of reading an article on Salon, you know what it’s like to listen to a crazy person thinking out loud. The folks at Salon are off their rockers, and probably should be hospitalized for their own safety.
Recently they have printed more than one article planting pedophilia as completely normal behavior. You may have thought this was the worst it was going to get over there. If so, you’d have been wrong.
Our intellectual champions at Salon have decided to educate us about climate change, insisting that to deny climate change is in the same league as denying the Holocaust. In fact, they propose that it’s even worse!
You may recall the Holocaust. That was the one where Hitler tortured and killed people based on their religion or ethnicity, and basically started World War II. Six million people dead at the end of the day.
I won’t steal any more of their thunder. I’ll let these nut jobs speak for themselves:
On September 15, Pulitzer-prize winning Inside Climate News reported that Exxon had known about the dangers posed by global warming due to fossil fuels since at least 1977, and spent several years engaged in serious scientific research before abruptly switching into the denialist mode, where it became a leading force for disinformation and denial. This stunning new revelation of just how long oil companies have known the truth about global warming while promoting denial and lies about it should have served as a wakeup call for the media to re-examine how it has naively misread decades of climate disinformation, and failed to adopt a sufficiently critical perspective. But not for the Associated Press Instead, the next week AP announced it was extending further journalistic cover for the still ongoing deception.
On the one hand, AP took a big step forward by deciding to stop using the term “climate change skeptic”, following concerted pressure from scientists and activists. But they also took a big step backward by deciding to not use the term “climate change denier” instead, and to actively nix it as well. “Climate change denier” sounded too much like “Holocaust denier,” AP explained, so it was out, too. They added the following to their style guide (which many journalists outside AP use as well):
Our guidance is to use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science and to avoid the use of skeptics or deniers.
This is, quite simply, wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
This is a classic example of false balance on AP’s part, with multiple problems on both sides of the scale and one big thing wrong at the middle: “doubt” is not mid-way between “skepticism” and “denial” . It far closer to the former than to the latter, which is why the deniers were so pleased with it.
Joe Romm cited three problems with AP’s reason: First, that AP had an easy alternative, pointed out by Justin Gillis in the NY Times in February: “others have started using the slightly softer word ‘denialist’ to make the same point without stirring complaints about evoking the Holocaust.” Second, that the most prominent deniers, like James Inhofe “knowingly use phony arguments to stop the world from acting in time…. Since when should anyone care about the phony concerns of such self-destructive anti-scientific people?” Third, Romm noted that many deniers actually like the term. If they don’t have a problem with it, why should we?
All that is true, but there’s a further point worth making: climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial deals with the deaths of millions in the past, which it did nothing to cause, however morally odious it surely is. Global warming denial deals with the deaths of millions in the future, which it helps to cause, by crippling efforts to prevent them. And that’s something much worse, as is reflected in law: It’s not a crime to lie about murders in the past, except to hinder a police investigation, or prosecution; but it is a crime to tell enabling lies about future murders—it’s called conspiracy to commit murder.
Recently, Ben Carson voiced an opinion on a related matter. He argued that had the Jews been armed with weapons, the tragedies of World War II might have been reduced. Seth Rogan, who you may know from such films as, “This Is The End” and “Superbad” and his fellow liberals found Carson’s statements to be offensive and went a little bit nuts about it.
Where is Seth Rogan on this one? Where is the outrage among liberals now? Salon is clearly insulting the victims of the Holocaust, in the most sinister way, and yet we find total silence amongst liberal critics.
Apparently, if an outrageous article like this one doesn’t fit into their political strategies, it doesn’t warrant criticism. If it’s not politically expedient to criticize an insane article, they just don’t do it.
Since it doesn’t give them a platform to criticize republicans, it’s not worth their time to mention it.
This is what we have come to expect from Democrats these days.
There are very dubious claims being made every day about climate change, and yet, the history of World War II is set in stone. Too even equate these two matters is beyond comprehension.
So next time you’re looking to have a conversation with a crazy person, enjoy a fresh article from Salon. Who knows what nonsense they will print next.