I mean really, what am I meant to make of this: What do vaccine sceptics have in common with climate change deniers? From the Crikey health blog. Where climate skeptics are likened to Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who started the whole MMR - autism controversy and was recently soundly spanked, and not in a good way, for his part in the fiasco. They say:
As predicted, the folly of MMR vaccine rejection is reaping its unhappy results. Similarly, with the climate change debate, the majority look on in dismay as the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions is delayed by the views of a minority.
I can't seem to find the name of who wrote this, though. COWARD. Sure, I blog anonymously, but I'm an independent blogger, not writing under the auspices of a larger publication. I don't get paid. In my previous guise as a freelance health / medical journalist, I always had to publish under my own name, which certainly helps your motivation in getting the facts straight.
Then I saw another recent headline: Is Denying Abstinence News Any Different From Denying Climate Change? (Not going to link it, its boring.)
It seems like if people are casting around for a suitable epithet for something they don't like, they just reach for the "climate denial" tarbrush.
Climate denial has been compared to everything from belief in a flat earth, creationism to even zionism. It has been similarly described as a contagion and a mental illness.
It seems to be a litte bit too late to start jumping onto the alarmist bandwagon now, I suggest that these people cast around for a new bogeyman. The IPCC or the CRU may be a good place to start. Alternatively, they could just bite me.
Update: How could I forget the epithet attributed to UN climate chief Pachauri? I believe he said something like climate change denial is like denying the link between smoking and cancer and that we should powder our butts with asbestos. Or something.