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 bradley13 on Monday February 16 2015, @07:08AM
Here's a comment from the dark side. I consider the entire AGW mess to be bad science at best or a political money/power grab at worst. The thing is, when people hear that, they aren't hearing what I am actually saying:
- Is the planet getting warmer? Of course it is. The planet has spent the last 200 years or so coming out of the little ice age. In addition, there are various natural cycles that affect climate. CO2 may also play a role, though I am unconvinced by the current science (see below).
- Is it a great idea to burn up all of our fossil resources, and to put a pile of CO2 into the atmosphere? Of course not. It's a waste of valuable feedstock, and however much confidence I have in the robustness of negative feedback cycles that drive climate, carrying out uncontrolled experiments on our only planet is not the very smartest thing we could do.
So I don't doubt "climate change", and I'm not for burning piles of oil and coal, but I am still a "denier", because the "warmist" crowd is full of crap. Specifically:
- They ignore the clear historical fact that the planet has been warmer in the past several thousand years, and that those warm periods have corresponded with "good times" in human history. The "Medieval Climate Optimum", before that during the height of the Roman Empire. Warmer may actually be better for the planet overall - nothing grows under a glacier - but having this discussion is sacrilege.
- They make claims of catastrophic, irreversable warming. Yet in geological times, the planet was immensely hotter with immensely higher CO2 levels. This makes it clear that negative feedback cycles prevent runaway warming.
- They alter the raw historical temperature data to bolster their cause, with inadequate justification and secret algorithms. In the case of the CRU, they then manage to lose the original, unadjusted data, and no longer have any record of exactly what adjustments they made. Nonetheless, the altered data is used as the basis for modeling and prediction. This is fraud, not science.
- Essentially none of the models or serious predictions have been born out by reality. Temperatures have not risen as predicted, number and severity of hurricanes has decreased, arctic ice has not disappeared, etc.. Look back at the original predictions made 10, 20 or 30 years ago - the accuracy rate is zero.
- When some of us complain about the above, they start ad hominem labeling ("denier") rather than addressing the very serious problems in their methodology.
That's my view of the situation...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @07:38AM
Denier!!!!
When some of us complain about the above, they start ad hominem labeling ("denier") rather than addressing the very serious problems in their methodology.
Your mistake is to think there is a methodology. Methodology is not what you think it is. Do not try to change the methodology, for there is no methodology, and that would be impossible, since we only have one earth and no control. And since we have no control, it is in g-d and Exxon's hands. You denier, you!