Calling frozen frankfurters hotdogs doesn't deliberately or dishonestly reframe the discussion in an overly simplified, pop culture manner. Hotdogs might be an

Calling frozen frankfurters hotdogs doesn't deliberately or dishonestly reframe the discussion in an overly simplified, pop culture manner. Hotdogs might be an everyman's food for sporting events and children, but they don't invoke a flippant, immature dismissal. Hotdogs aren't even adversarial. In this sense the use of "climate denier" fits with the coarsening of culture theme of the film. The space for discussion is prematurely attacked by the overly simplistic frame of "climate denier". Perhaps the author isn't capable of operating in that space, therefore he requires defensive rhetoric. Maybe it isn't deliberate or conscious. Perhaps he is simply bleating the preferred partisan slogan? Nuance is deliberately or unconsciously removed in lieu of shallow arrogance. That's ironic in my reading of the article and view of the movie. There's no feigned confusion in my comment above. Perhaps you misread it.