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: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Monday February 16 2015, @02:29PM
No, you are looking at it wrong: The Earth is the experiment, and there is no control because we don't have a second Earth available. We've tested what we can test in a lab, and those tests have shown that the mechanism of AGW works exactly as predicted.
To me, the other key factor is that those who are opposed to the theory of AGW can't say "Here's the evidence we've gathered that demonstrates that AGW is wrong." By far the most popular arguments are:
1. The evidence is insufficient. However, when you dig into what they would deem sufficient evidence, the bar is so high it can never be met - we would need a second Earth to exact specifications, in the same location as the current one, complete with a moon that's the exact copy of Earth's moon, with all the flora and fauna that we have in this one, with 6 billion people on the planet who we've somehow convinced to not emit excess CO2.
2. There's a giant conspiracy of climatologists who are fabricating evidence to convince us that AGW is real, which gives them big grant money and gives the evil liberals an excuse to destroy the economy so the world becomes a hippie paradise. This argument is so silly it's hardly worth addressing, but the simplest argument is this: Any climatologist who demonstrated AGW was false would get so much money from the oil and coal industries it's not even funny, which means that all the financial incentives point the exact opposite way the conspiracy theorists think.
3. The apocalypse, complete with the Rapture, will come before AGW becomes a problem. Given the track record of end-of-the-world predictions, I'd consider that an unwise basis for public policy.
Hence calling them "deniers" seems totally reasonable to me, because the counterarguments are basically nonsense.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:39PM
You have no proven tools, how precisely are you predicting further rises? Prove your tools first via experiment then predict. Until experimentation is done you have nothing but a hypothesis.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by wantkitteh on Monday February 16 2015, @10:37PM
Serious question: are you mentally impaired in some way? Not trying to be trollish, just wondering if you're autistic and can't personally handle anyone who has a different opinion.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @10:47PM
Opinions have no place in science. Science is about facts.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:12AM
Not according to you it isn't - you seem to be requiring a perfect 100% prediction of the future before you'll even allow a normal discussion to take place. Funny, that seems to be your MO on Techdirt as well...