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, Troll) by aristarchus on Monday February 16 2015, @05:08AM
Faux, well it is right there in your user name, isn't it! Such faux outrage does not serve you well. You mistake the point being made. Appeals to authority depend on reputation, nothing more, nothing less. So when you say,
attempt to discredit someone who is stating that fraud is being committed
by relating this to other unrelated alleged frauds, the relation is that they are alleged by the same person. Now one might argue that our bete noir was correct in his initial allegations, but nonetheless, guilt by association is also not necessarily a fallacy. Sometimes who a person associates with does say something about the reliability of their views. This is where the pidgeonholing you refer to comes from, but often times it is a good guide. As Deepthroat said, "Follow the money". But then, scientific method aside, that is what this is all about.
And for scientists, the cut comes with peer-review. Some businessman espousing on how global warming is a fraud because there are not "probes" (interesting choice of words, but we will drop that) on every square meter of the planet would be immediately dismissed by anyone with a reputation for rational thought, not just those with respect for the scientific method. Mutual respect for reputation is the basis of peer review, and an insinuation of bias, of ulterior motive, is fatal to status in the scientific community. So the cut is between scientists, and those who respect science, and those who want to come up with "alternative theories" and demand they be taken seriously just because they have not been conclusively (in their minds) proven wrong. There is a word for this. "Deniers" is rather kind, I think.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @05:25AM
Rather than credulously ask you how you see Karl Denninger personally profiting by "following the money" by making the case for fraud in claims of human-caused climate change, I'll make this my last response to you and hope the audience makes up their own minds as it seems pretty clear to me in light of your hyperbolic "every square meter of the planet" retort that your mind is already made up.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday February 16 2015, @05:49AM
Last response from an AC! I dream of the day! Most likely not going to happen. But to your question.
Yes, the accusation of financial interest is a form of the circumstantial ad hominem. Just because someone stands to profit from the policy they advocate does not mean it is not a good policy. But it does suggest that they are not putting it forward for that reason. This is where all the accusations of a conflict of interest by climate scientists are laughable. Do you know how much scientists get paid? They usually work for universities! Under constant threat of privatization by monied energy interests! Laughable.
No as for the Tea Party, Taxed Enough Already? I am surprised by the revisionist history that has been offered here. Against financial corruption? Bush's bailout of Wall Street? I guess it is possible, but there are alternative explanations! Like Dick Armey! And may be Denninger is not a Michele Bachman or a Louie Gohmert, but definitely on that side of the crazy wall. I do not find the witness credible.
As for personal interest by Denninger? I don't know what his portfolio looks like or that of his clients, but I can tell you that whenever any financial person sticks their head into anything other than market forecasts and psychics, they are completely out of their league. Jim Cramer, anyone? Denninger's point about only 3% of the world being monitored by "probes" (he said it again!) belies his ignorance of empirical scientific data. Again, I have no confidence in proffered authority, and reject him as an authority on this issue.
Am I too harsh? Anyone who would cite this person as an authority has to be a denier, or a Teabagger. My mind is not made up, though. Change it.