Ann Coulter Says Liberals Are Equating Claims Of A Global Warming Hoax To Holocaust Denial

Ann Coulter is always known for making controversial statements, but now she says progressives and liberals are equating anyone who calls global warming a hoax to those who are holocaust deniers.

In a related report by The Inquisitr, some say that a Common Core caused a Holocaust denial assignment to be issued in one California school.

The reason Coulter even brought the subject up was because of comments made by Pat Sajak of Wheel Of Fortune fame. The host went on the attack, claiming that those who support global warming and climate change science are a threat to society:

"I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night.... Very hot weather: "We're all going to die!" Very cold weather: 'There's a difference between climate & weather, moron!'"
Interestingly enough, a recent report by NOAA even said as much, saying that their computer models for predicting the hurricane season did not take global warming into account at all. But that's neither here nor there... this is all about the politics!

ann-coulter (1)

In an ironic twist, when we covered the original story about Sajak we said, "Do you think everyone needs to cool off a bit and stop calling each other alarmists and science deniers?" Apparently, Ann Coulter didn't get the memo and even managed to ratchet up the level of rhetoric:

"We all have to believe in global warming, we all have to believe in immigration — either lots of immigration or even more immigration. We have to believe that Trayvon Martin was killed by a brutal racist, and if you don't you get called all of these crazy names that Sajak is referring to. The worst thing and I think the most offensive is that 'global warming deniers' comes from people who are 'Holocaust deniers.' You are calling half of the American people, who weirdly enough don't believe in the apocalyptic predictions that keep not coming true, equivalent to Holocaust deniers? That's how the debate perceives them in America."
But Sajak also sent out another Tweet that seemed to indicate he might have been just joking:When Ann Coulter was asked about this Tweet, she claimed Sajak still supports her side:
"I'm sure he doesn't believe in global warming, as I don't, and as a majority of Americans don't. The funny part was him coming up with the arguments that are usually used against us."
Coulter is probably referring to the polls which show that an increasing number of Americans now believe global warming to be a hoax. She's still wrong to claim a majority supports her viewpoint since the poll data indicates 23 percent reject global warming, not a majority.

Unfortunately, the political nature of climate change science cannot be denied. For example, IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer once claimed that "one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world's wealth." Stephen Schneider, who served as an author for multiple IPCC reports, was even more honest about how climate change science is influenced by politics and personal beliefs:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Of course, that should not take away from the work of honest climatologists who believe their particular computer model is accurately predicting a warming trend for the global average over the long term. But once the name calling starts, and dissenting climatologists find themselves being blackballed, it's difficult to hold a conversation to discover whatever the truth may really be.

Do you agree with Ann Coulter that calling someone a "science denier" is essentially on the same level as calling someone a Holocaust denier?