The early versions of this probably had something to do with it.
"You voted for Obama? You're a racist!
You're not voting for him? You're a RACIST!"
Lather, rinse, repeat.
A response to globular warmering true believers yelling "DENIER!", this is the beginning:
The tragic thing about the thoughtless use of a stereotype (denier) is that it reveals that you really think of people in terms of its projected meaning. In particular, even in your response you seem to equate the term “skeptic” with “denier of AGW”.
This is silly. On WUWT most of the skeptics do not “deny” AGW, certainly not the scientists or professional weather people (I myself am a physicist) and honestly, most of the non-scientist skeptics have learned better than that. What they challenge is the catastrophic label and the alleged magnitude of the projected warming on a doubling of CO_2. They challenge this on rather solid empirical grounds and with physical arguments and data analysis that is every bit as scientifically valid as that used to support larger estimates, often obtaining numbers that are in better agreement with observation. For this honest doubt and skepticism that the highly complex global climate models are correct you have the temerity to socially stigmatize them in a scientific journal with a catch-all term that implies that they are as morally reprehensible as those that “deny” that the Nazi Holocaust of genocide against the Jews?
If you want any Kalashnikitty shirts, this is the time.
Dammit, I didn't post on this month's postal match! It's over here
So, you just take what the major media and their experts tell us about what's happening in the mid-East, and figure on the opposite; sounds about right.
Oh my, heads must have been exploding like a greenie 'kill the kids' dream come to life:
'Failure is the only option for this conference if you care about the environment & poor people. Carbon based energy has been one of the greatest liberators of mankind in history of our planet'
I challenge UN activists, environmentalists, Greenpeace, and the media to ask Sec. Hillary Clinton what the objective here in Rio is for the U.S. Her objective is nothing more than to check a box and get the hell out of town. She is going to be conning people if you believe she is here for substantive agreement.
We are witnessing an historic moment in history of UN. UN IPCC chair Pachauri is now saying global warming is but a secondary problem to sustainability. The UN is now saying saving species is a greater urgency than global warming. They have now thrown global warming under the bus in favor of species extinction.
And from a former IPCC supporter,
For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.