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, Informative) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @05:00AM
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
> 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
Because humans burnt too many fossil fuels on Venus? ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @08:31PM
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
There doesn't need to be two earths - just let the one we've got burn while idiots insist we fiddle.