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This discussion has been archived.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 The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @02:59PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 16 2015, @02:59PM (#145654) Homepage Journal

    I don't disagree with that at all. I disagree with saying it is causing significant warming because it requires its very own proof. I disagree with saying we are warming at all because I've seen enough of the methodology to know it's pretty shit.

    Do proper science and you'll have no beefs out of me. But you gotta do proper science.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @03:49PM

    by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday February 16 2015, @03:49PM (#145673)

    I can't help but get the feeling you're being intentionally obtuse. But in case you're not, here are a few good links to get started on the latest atmospheric and biological science.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofaoiHYKtlc [youtube.com]
    http://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/news/review/review-vol11.pdf [fs.fed.us]
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090209-trees-migrating-north.html [nationalgeographic.com]
    http://www.startribune.com/blogs/226930661.html [startribune.com]

    I live in Minnesota, the fastest warming state in the nation, and one at the confluence of three distinct ecological zones highly dependent on temperature and precipitation. Our frost-free growing season is now 9 days longer than when my grandparents farmed here. Summertime humidity is dramatically increasing as subtropical airmasses push further north. The number of nights below -30F at notoriously cold reporting stations is decreasing. The number of subzero nights in the more populated areas is decreasing. The boreal forest is moving north at at least 5 miles per decade. No one here denies climate change anymore because we live in it every day. The cold defines us as a region and it is changing.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 16 2015, @05:30PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 16 2015, @05:30PM (#145714) Homepage Journal

      Regional, anecdotal claims, however valid, do not make for scientific study of the climate. And I have seen plenty of what people are calling science, very little of it is. You have to prove predictions in science and you can't do that by historical data, no matter how much of it you have. Where is experimental science is possible, you must perform an experiment and live with the results or your shit simply is not science. Research? Sure it can be research. History? That as well. Science has rules though and you gotta follow them or you're not doing science.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 2) by LancePodstrong on Monday February 16 2015, @08:06PM

        by LancePodstrong (5029) on Monday February 16 2015, @08:06PM (#145790)

        Obviously you didn't read any of my links because they are, in fact, science. You just throw out anything you don't like by claiming it's not science. The nice thing about the truth is that it's true whether you believe in it or not. None of the claims therein are regional or anecdotal. The boreal forest is moving poleward in the entire northern hemisphere as the frost-free season lengthens. You're more than intentionally obtuse, you're willfully ignorant.