Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Monday February 16 2015, @02:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the Pro-Heat dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:57AM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 16 2015, @02:57AM (#145445) Homepage Journal

    Evidence that is not experimental data proving or disproving a hypothesis is evidence of fuck-all according to the Scientific Method.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Troll=1, Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Disagree=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:09AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @04:09AM (#145470)

    Hypothesis: Global Warming exists
    Data: Global warming trend.
    Therefore the hypothesis is correct.

    Any other absurd statements?

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @04:17AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 16 2015, @04:17AM (#145477) Homepage Journal

      Recheck your scientific method. I don't see an experiment in there proving diddly.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @06:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @06:05AM (#145513)

        Yeah, but its an elegant theory, therefore we do not need to perform these 'experiments'.

        Nor confirm the experiments which disprove this elegant theory.

        Infact, if a scientist shows me his working out, method and references, I'll infact attack the man - because he must have been given money for his anti-science research by dirty oil... those killers of unborn children ;)

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @12:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @12:53PM (#145608)

        It is called a natural experiment. If you were to have a scientific background and not just a code monkey degree, or even scientific literacy, you would know that.

      • (Score: 1) by wantkitteh on Monday February 16 2015, @10:32PM

        by wantkitteh (3362) on Monday February 16 2015, @10:32PM (#145865) Homepage Journal

        Never heard of an observation study?

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @05:00AM

    by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:00AM (#145490)

    You're right, there aren't two Earths, so a true side by side experiment is impossible. There are two things we can do as second-best: computer models and archaeology. All of our best available science, aside from duplicating the Earth and having one without an Industrial Age, indicates that the Earth is warming and that it's caused by humans. If we know that CO2 reflects longwave radiation (which we do) and we know that we're putting it into the atmosphere (which we do) then it's reasonable to surmise that putting CO2 into the atmosphere would reflect longwave radiation back toward the earth that would otherwise have radiated into space. It's also reasonable to surmise that by changing the heat balance of the Earth such that now less heat is leaving than is arriving, the Earth will warm. Especially when all of our observations agree with the hypothesis. Specifically, which of the previous points has you unconvinced? I don't see anyone else producing another set of numbers that shows the Earth hasn't warmed, just complaining about the existing sets.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 16 2015, @09:32AM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday February 16 2015, @09:32AM (#145550) Journal

      > You're right, there aren't two Earths, so a true side by side experiment is impossible.

      No, but we do have Venus. Ask any Global Warming "skeptic" why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:30PM (#145642)

        Because humans burnt too many fossil fuels on Venus? ;-)

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @08:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @08:31PM (#145805)

          Not humans, silly! Venusians! Hmm, but we haven't heard from them in a long while. I hope they are alright.

    • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:26AM

      by wantkitteh (3362) on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:26AM (#145932) Homepage Journal

      There doesn't need to be two earths - just let the one we've got burn while idiots insist we fiddle.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday February 16 2015, @12:48PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday February 16 2015, @12:48PM (#145607)

    One part of experimental evidence that we do in fact have: Labs have replicated the mechanism of AGW theory, namely that higher CO2 concentrations increase the ability of air to trap solar heat. So the current chain of reasoning is not just "higher CO2 concentrations happened, global average temperatures are increasing, so CO2 causes global average temperature increase", but actually "higher CO2 concentrations happened, we know CO2 concentrations cause an increase in average temperatures, and this is observably happening as this theory predicts."

    As a sibling poster points out, we don't have an identical copy of the Earth to experiment on, so we can't really do a full-on controlled experiment unless you have access to enough funding to get to and pay the Magratheans. What we do have is a mountain of evidence about this Earth that says that not only is CO2 causing global warming, all of our adjustments to computer simulations about the future have been because reality was worse than was predicted.

    So yes, if you're thinking global warming is nonsense, you're denying experimental evidence.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @01:14PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 16 2015, @01:14PM (#145618) Homepage Journal

      Then you're again looking at it wrong. The earth is the control and the models are the experiment. Your tools have to be accurate and of a known precision before you can use them in science.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @02:24PM

        by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday February 16 2015, @02:24PM (#145638)

        If I smash my phone with a hammer and my phone breaks, do I really not know that the hammer broke the phone until I perform a second control experiment with a phone without a hammer to see if it doesn't break?

        If blankets make you warmer, and you put on a blanket, would it make sense to attribute your increase in warmth to increased output from your heater? You don't have a second you to not put on a blanket and see if you don't get warmer. How can you know for sure?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:32PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:32PM (#145643)

          If I smash my phone with a hammer and my phone breaks, do I really not know that the hammer broke the phone until I perform a second control experiment with a phone without a hammer to see if it doesn't break?

          It's not broken because you smashed it with your hammer, but because you were holding it wrong while you did. :-)

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:42PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 16 2015, @02:42PM (#145647) Homepage Journal

          Simple, make predictions and run experiments until the precision approaches perfection. In this case, repeated applications of a blanket and measurements. Is it true certainty, no, but it's a fuckload better than the shit models we have now.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday February 16 2015, @02:29PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday February 16 2015, @02:29PM (#145641)

        No, you are looking at it wrong: The Earth is the experiment, and there is no control because we don't have a second Earth available. We've tested what we can test in a lab, and those tests have shown that the mechanism of AGW works exactly as predicted.

        To me, the other key factor is that those who are opposed to the theory of AGW can't say "Here's the evidence we've gathered that demonstrates that AGW is wrong." By far the most popular arguments are:
        1. The evidence is insufficient. However, when you dig into what they would deem sufficient evidence, the bar is so high it can never be met - we would need a second Earth to exact specifications, in the same location as the current one, complete with a moon that's the exact copy of Earth's moon, with all the flora and fauna that we have in this one, with 6 billion people on the planet who we've somehow convinced to not emit excess CO2.

        2. There's a giant conspiracy of climatologists who are fabricating evidence to convince us that AGW is real, which gives them big grant money and gives the evil liberals an excuse to destroy the economy so the world becomes a hippie paradise. This argument is so silly it's hardly worth addressing, but the simplest argument is this: Any climatologist who demonstrated AGW was false would get so much money from the oil and coal industries it's not even funny, which means that all the financial incentives point the exact opposite way the conspiracy theorists think.

        3. The apocalypse, complete with the Rapture, will come before AGW becomes a problem. Given the track record of end-of-the-world predictions, I'd consider that an unwise basis for public policy.

        Hence calling them "deniers" seems totally reasonable to me, because the counterarguments are basically nonsense.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:39PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 16 2015, @02:39PM (#145645) Homepage Journal

          You have no proven tools, how precisely are you predicting further rises? Prove your tools first via experiment then predict. Until experimentation is done you have nothing but a hypothesis.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 3, Funny) by wantkitteh on Monday February 16 2015, @10:37PM

            by wantkitteh (3362) on Monday February 16 2015, @10:37PM (#145867) Homepage Journal

            Serious question: are you mentally impaired in some way? Not trying to be trollish, just wondering if you're autistic and can't personally handle anyone who has a different opinion.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 16 2015, @05:56PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday February 16 2015, @05:56PM (#145722) Journal

    Someone who posts the same unsupported assertion 100 times in a thread about Global Warming I call a denier.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @06:21PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 16 2015, @06:21PM (#145730) Homepage Journal

      Unsupported? There is absolutely nothing unsupported about the Scientific Method. Follow it or STFU.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 16 2015, @07:30PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday February 16 2015, @07:30PM (#145764) Journal

        Unsupported? There is absolutely nothing unsupported about the Scientific Method. Follow it or STFU.

         
        Trivial examples of the scientific method working just fine in situations where there is no ideal "control" have been posted all over this thread: Geology, Physics, Astronomy, etc, etc, etc. That you ignore these and continue to post the exact same tired trope 100 times is why you are a Denier and not a Skeptic.