Twice in the recent past

I have come across the phrase "global warming deniers." "Global warming deniers" yields 238k results on Google and searching the exact phrase (" 'global warming deniers' ") yields 133k, so the phrase is in fairly wide usage. It struck me as a very powerful thing to call someone, for several reasons.

The first is the word "deny." To deny, in this sense, is to be contradictory, to refuse acknowledgment or recognition or to refuse to admit the truth or existence of something. So, right off the bat, a 'global warming denier' is a pretty stubborn and obstinate person, certainly no one pleasant.

"Deny" also has a pretty strong connotation of a guilty party trying to protect their ass, as it's most often seen in a legal context: "O.J. Simpson denies the allegations against him;" "Michael Jackson denies any inappropriate contact;" "City accountants deny any knowledge of wrongdoing."

(As a quick aside, doesn't "wrongdoing" have a wonderfully Orwellian feel to it?)

"Deny" coupled with "global" intensifies these meanings. You're accusing someone of refusing to admit to something as large as the Earth itself. Using the two words together makes the scale of someone's denial ludicrous; it's like denying the moon or Africa. What kind of a stubborn ass do have to be to refuse the existence of Africa?

Finally, what makes 'global warming deniers' such a powerful appellation is it's similarity to "holocaust deniers" (451k results. Holocaust denial nets 1.18 million), something so heinous that even holocaust deniers themselves understand it's not something to be known as; they seem to prefer the term 'revisionist.' Weather intentional or not, global warming activists are subtly comparing their opponents to Nazis, and I think the negative connotations associated with 'global warming deniers' are powerful enough that it will be difficult for people to shake the label, once applied. In most debates, playing the Hitler Card, as I call it (comparing Bush to Hitler, comparing abortionists to Nazis, etc.) instantly removes the argument from the realm of rationality and, unless they want to spend a tremendous amount of time and energy repudiating it, all the defender can do is deny it.