Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Monday February 16 2015, @02:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the Pro-Heat dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @02:24PM

    by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday February 16 2015, @02:24PM (#145638)

    If I smash my phone with a hammer and my phone breaks, do I really not know that the hammer broke the phone until I perform a second control experiment with a phone without a hammer to see if it doesn't break?

    If blankets make you warmer, and you put on a blanket, would it make sense to attribute your increase in warmth to increased output from your heater? You don't have a second you to not put on a blanket and see if you don't get warmer. How can you know for sure?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16 2015, @02:32PM (#145643)

    If I smash my phone with a hammer and my phone breaks, do I really not know that the hammer broke the phone until I perform a second control experiment with a phone without a hammer to see if it doesn't break?

    It's not broken because you smashed it with your hammer, but because you were holding it wrong while you did. :-)

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:42PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 16 2015, @02:42PM (#145647) Homepage Journal

    Simple, make predictions and run experiments until the precision approaches perfection. In this case, repeated applications of a blanket and measurements. Is it true certainty, no, but it's a fuckload better than the shit models we have now.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.