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, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Monday February 16 2015, @05:24AM
I've tried debating Creationists. They aren't really arguing against evolution, they're arguing against science itself. They're happy to take science that confirms their biases and beliefs, but they leave the science they don't like.
They'll argue that there isn't proof. What they mean is that you can't prove anything as soon as you invoke the supernatural. That's true. But what they failed to understand is that science is not applicable to the supernatural, only the natural. An omnipotent being could do anything. The world could have been created 5 days or 5 minutes ago, with creatures that think they remember things that happened 10 years ago. There's no way to prove it didn't happen like that, or any other way anyone cares to invent. They love to invoke Occam's Razor, love the idea of simple answers, simple explanations, and the simplest explanation of all is "God did it". They don't get that that's not an explanation at all. It's not even begging the question, another concept they don't grasp. They also take great comfort in the thought that God has a plan, and whenever anything goes well, embrace that as evidence that there is a God and He loves them. But they also say no one can know God's purpose, especially when things go badly. That response is another total cop out.
That's why hammering them with the tons of evidence in support of evolution does not work. It's the same with Climate Change.