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: 2, Insightful) by cmn32480 on Monday February 16 2015, @04:26AM
Just as point of thought...
Much like Al Sharpton crying racism at every turn, many climate scientists know the if they cannot create at least some form of worry, they are out of a job. And those that have turned the climate change debate into their own personal fortune (ahem Al Gore ahem) do nothing to advance the science, yet quote whatever science, pseudo-science, or writing on a cocktail napkin that they find that will support their stance and enrich their pockets.
If people would stop the political pandering and actually look at the data that has been collected in the last hundred plus years and make the adjustments for the local changes (parking lots, etc), we might actually be able to find out what really is happening.
This is not the same as studying the Astronomy of a far off galaxy. There are many, many BILLIONS of dollars at stake in the climate change debate. And no matter what anybody from either side says, they both want those dollars.
Am I pretty certain that pollution is bad? Yes.
Do I think using renewable clean energy is good? Yes.
Do I think that the people who are profiting off the climate change debate give one rats ass about "saving the planet"? Hell no.
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson