3 ms·
That might work were denial of higher-order objects not a thing. Thatcher famously denied the existence of society: ... and who is society? There is no such th
by jjgreen 4y ago
That might work were denial of higher-order objects not a thing. Thatcher famously denied the existence of society: ... and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families ... so "literal climate denial" is easily conceivable: ... and what is climate? There is no such thing! There are individual days of weather ...
Let's be honest, it's lazy copy-editing at the Guardian, which has crafted that into an art-form.
- eesmith 4y agoWould anything convince you otherwise? Like Google n-gram showing that "climate denial" is used at about 60% of the rate of "climate change denial"? Nearly 5,000 Google Scholar papers using "climate denial" vs 9,700 for "climate change denial"? Including a 2007 piece at https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1325774/ad-hominem-absurdum/1929060/ https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1325774/ad-hominem-absur... complaining about "Greenpeace's constant use of the phrase “climate denial” and its related cousins"?
- jjgreen 4y ago17% of native English speakers spell received as "recieved", and 23% of Americans pronounce nuclear as "nukyular" (*). Does that convince you that these are legitimate spellings and pronunciations? So a popularity contest does not convince me, but were someone to address my points above, possibly. (*) made-up numbers, but I guess not far-off
- eesmith 4y agoN-gram "received/recieved" shows a relative ratio of around 3000x, no doubt because it's derived from published books, many of which have gone through a copy editor. I don't think you've made any other point besides your disdain for the copy editors at The Guardian. Since it appears many other copy editors agree with The Guardian, I think it's fair to say your inference is unsupported.