SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Justin Gillis reports at the NYT that in the long-running political battles over climate change, the fight about what to call the various factions has been going on for a long time with people who reject the findings of climate science dismissed as “deniers” and “disinformers" and those who accept the science attacked as “alarmists” or “warmistas". The issue has recently taken a new turn, with a public appeal that has garnered 22,000 signatures asking the news media to abandon the most frequently used term for people who question climate science, “skeptic,” and call them “climate deniers” instead. The petition began with Mark B. Boslough, a physicist in New Mexico who grew increasingly annoyed by the term over several years. The phrase is wrong, says Boslough, because “these people do not embrace the scientific method.”
Last year, Boslough wrote a public letter on the issue, "Deniers are not Skeptics." and dozens of scientists and science advocates associated with the committee quickly signed it. According to Boslough real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” "[Senator] Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed," says Boslough. "He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title skeptic."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Monday February 16 2015, @02:53AM
It seems like there is cognitive dissonance on both sides of this debate, as both sides have ulterior political motives for their stances.
The believers have a hard-green core who are against population growth, new and cleaner energy sources, and who often are well enough off that a jump in energy prices won't directly affect them. They are not usually willing to admit their warnings were previously that cooling was the problem, not warming. [wikipedia.org] With their anti-nuclear stance blocking new plants, we are stuck relying on carbon-polluting sources or renewable sources that are not yet fully viable.
The disbelievers have a pro-business core who are all for cheap energy, favor population growth (more customers), and their political allies often represent American states that are economically dependent on energy production like West Virginia. They may disingenuously point to short term cold blips in the the long term increase [dailymail.co.uk] in temperature to attempt to disprove the other side. With their investments in coal, oil, and gas extraction, they won't push all that hard for either nuclear nor renewable sources.
Maybe we'll see safer nuclear designs that will make the most polluting energy source, coal power, a thing of the past. [bostonherald.com]
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:59AM
And then you have people like me who simply hate people calling stuff science when they haven't followed the Scientific Method.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @03:28AM
Ok so you're only a dev. That's nothing to be ashamed of son! Thank you for knowing science requires repeatable results. This article was going to be the last straw for me with SN; I get antsy even hearing "Climate Science"- these words cannot go together until we have a second, identical earth to experiment on.
But now I know the Mighty Buzzard, and as I know, then I shall also be known, and thus I will abideth the Soylent.
Seriously, I appreciate it - I was beginning to wonder.... maybe I'll even sign up for an account and stop ACing it.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @03:54AM
Or, as said above you could use the actual earth as control and the models as the experiments. Your issue solved and you know exactly which models are accurate (none of them) or to what degree they're inaccurate.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 16 2015, @06:06AM
The models are the hypotheses, not the experiments.
Nature have a habit to not care a iota about the accuracy or precisions of one's models - and experiments always involve poking nature with a stick, see what is doing (well, except "thought experiment" which usually result in mental situations of undead cats and thermal or other type of daemons).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @11:18AM
Right but we're specifically talking climate prediction here. If you can't accurately and to a known precision do so, you've no business doing so and calling it science.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 16 2015, @09:25PM
No matter what topic or area of science we talk about, please keep in mind the following points :
Otherwise, I'll suspect you of "cognitive dissonance" when it comes to climate change topic (i.e. strong bias with post-factum rationalization)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:22AM
I've seen your scripting, why haven't you written a macro to regurgitate your bullshit yet? Even your keyboard is sick of your pointless obstinacy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:13AM
Oh, great, now we are actively attracting deniers?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Monday February 16 2015, @04:38AM
Just wanted to add that it is a "hard green core" but that is money green. [nakedcapitalism.com] Sadly too many that are for AGW don't seem to realize there is a REASON why the ONLY "solution" we get is carbon indulgences and that is because certain powerful groups and individuals will make out like bandits [forbes.com].
So just remember that it isn't "the big bad oil against the poor environmentalists" its "one group of 1% bloodsucking leeches against another group of 1% bloodsucking leeches" and NEITHER really give a single fuck about the planet, its all about their stock portfolios.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.