I was watching Al Gore on Fox news the other night. The debate was Global Warming. Al Gore was on the defensive trying to defend is his position that man-made Global Warming was real and imminent. He then went on to call all those who disagreed with him “Global Warming Deniers” I must be living in a cave because I had never heard that term used before.
I immediately got a knot in my stomach. It was a knot of history. A knot of irritation at Al Gore for his ignorance of history and the power of the spoken word.
It had nothing to do with my views on Global Warming. I got the knot in my stomach because I felt that Al Gore has intentionally attached the word “denier” to call up either conscious or sub-conscious images of the Holocaust. Drawing on a subtle context and back of the mind imagery specifically designed to cause a subtle, parallel inference in the viewer/listener.
I do not dispute that the term “denier” has been around for a long time pre-dating its attachment to Holocaust Denial, a discredited revisionist historical theory that has been around since the 60′s.
There however, is also no disputing that in modern times the term “denier”, when attached to a scientific or other theory has become inextricably entwined with the Holocaust. Attached to discredit those who are “denying the obvious” I do not dispute Al Gore’s right to use it. But why use it? Why use it unless you are intentionally trying to draw up subtle inferences parallel with the Holocaust. THAT, in my mind is inappropriate.
Is the highly educated Mr Gore claiming that in his entire internal linguistics database there is no other appropriate way to make his point with the same force?
Am I being too sensitive? Possibly. I still do not like it. When I feel like the term is purposely being used to draw on the Holocaust I feel like my history is being denied. Regardless of my views on Global Warming, I view it as a desperation move on Mr. Gores part. A move that is beneath his intellect and intent.
I wish he would stop. Mr. Gore, please stop using that term
December 14th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Brian,
While i kinda geta knot in my stomach everytime Al Gore opens his mouth..
(he invented the internet? pssh!)
a different perspective from someone a bit detached…
9/11 deniers…
Moon landing deniers…
WMD deniers…
and of course from the Google..
maybe it's gore.. but a search for "deniers" shows mostly global warming stuph..
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS354U...
December 14th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Steve, people can attach the term "denier" to various theories all day long to make that point but those are individual preferences. You will not find many references to those uses versus something attaining pop culture status because of its use and who uses it. Huge difference.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Do you honestly think Al Gore is trying to take away from the Jewish holocaust in any way shape or form? To be honest with you, I don't think that was what he was going for here. I am pretty sure he truly believes that the sky is falling. But I guess we really won't know that for sure until it falls. Then it's kinda too late. It's like religion, the most perfect product ever created by man to sell. All you need is a story and an audience.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I do not think that was his intent in any way shape or form. He intent was to make a point using the connection. Intent is not always consistent with effect
December 14th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Brian, normally we pretty much see eye-to-eye on things. I am happy to see in your post that you at least acknowledge the possibility of being too sensitive. Intent is a hard thing to prove, but easy (rightly or wrongly) to infer. There can be no dispute that there are people who do, in fact, deny that global warming is a real, man-made phenomenon. The difference, as I see it, is that Holocaust deniers are denying an actual, historical, and awful event. Global warming deniers are denying a concept. Feelings aside, what would you suggest as an alternative phrase? Global-warming_______: disagreers? detractors? ignorers? It appears to me that, as disagreeable as you find the phrase, an alternative may be difficult to come by. Suggestions?
December 14th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
His intent was to dismiss as a witless kook anyone who disputes Al's "Truth." But you do have to be a kook to deny the Holocaust, or the official theory of 9/11, because they are events that already happened, and there is an enormous amount of physical evidence, and credible witnesses, supporting both. But the theory and degree, of global warming and its causes are the subject of legitimate dispute, now matter how hard the supposed "scientists" on whom Gore relied as the basis for his entire documentary try to suppress any scientific query into their theories.