Denier and racist labels both aim to permanently silence opponents: "To raise the cost on the right of going after the left...call them racist." Journolist, 2010. "Cries of 'racist' and 'denier' have exactly the same purpose: to shut people up who don't agree with you." Comment to Ben Pile post, 2015

.
"What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left....call them racist." 7/20/10, "'Call Them Racists', How "journolists" tried to suppress the news." By James Taranto, Wall St. Journal

2/9/15, "About ‘Denying’, ‘Deniers’, and ‘Denial’," Ben Pile, Climate-Resistance.org

Among comments to above 2/9/15 post:

"Craig Loehle on February 10, 2015 at 5:09 pm 

"Cries of “racist” and “denier” have exactly the same purpose: to shut people up who don’t agree with you. For example, the black economist Thomas Sowell has argued that welfare has had a detrimental effect on black families and culture. We can support his point by noting that in England welfare has had a detrimental effects on white families. But if I try to oppose welfare, I would be labeled “racist”. So no one is allowed to debate welfare’s benefits and harms. Both end up being censorship and thought control. I am firmly in favor of allowing idiots to express all sorts of idiocy without getting fired because what is idiocy is a matter of opinion."

=================================

Above Ben Pile post via:

2/12/15, "By Their Language We Shall Know Them," No Frakking Consensus

"Ben Pile is one of the most incisive and original thinkers in the climate sphere. His blog posts, at Climate Resistance: Challenging Climate Orthodoxy, are often long, but well worth a careful read. 

His latest effort examines recent online discussions regarding the use of an ugly epithet:

The word ‘denier’ is in the official climate change lexicon. It is not street slang. It is not shorthand. It is precise. It is deliberate. Its use is intended to service a political agenda. This political agenda involves giving authority to entities that aren’t democratically accountable:

The institutions of climate change were established outside of the usual processes which steer the construction of public bodies – their rectitude given from the outset, as planet-savers, no need for debate, no need to test their legitimacy or purpose, no need for meaningful oversight.
…a great deal of political capital is invested in climate change. This is to say that, no matter how real climate change is, there was an intention, from the outset, of making the environment the ground for political authority – in particular supranational political bodies – outside of democratic oversight.

… When words such as ‘denier’ and ‘denial’ appear on Twitter and elsewhere, Pile says we learn important things about the people employing these terms:

1. They have no interest in genuine conversation.
2. Afraid of debate, they hide behind name-calling.
3. They consider themselves morally righteous.
4. To challenge them is to be labelled and dismissed on moral grounds.  

In other words, these people are fanatics." Read Ben Pile’s blog post, "About ‘Denying’, ‘Deniers’, and ‘Denial’"  

========================

Comment: All US politicians know that even if global CO2 danger exists, China is the only country that can reduce it in any significant way. They know whatever the US does to lower its CO2 is negated by China. They may even admit these things out loud, but then simply continue on or change the subject. They know they can commit any crime they want. They're "Untouchable." Meaning, Americans are ruled by a mob. The $2 billion a day CO2 scare industry was after all started by politicians, not climate scientists. For decades they've diverted millions of taxpayer dollars each day to the CO2 industry that could have gone to the poor and needy. Boehner and McConnell are the unsung heroes of this crime. For two and three decades they've very carefully allowed nothing to stop it.