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: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday February 16 2015, @09:46PM
If an idea, concept, hypothesis or theory isn't falsifiable, it's not science. Full stop.
This is a denialist myth. It revolves around the false belief that Karl Popper's views on science define what science is.
I don't know (or particularly care) who this Karl Popper might be. Science is defined as a set of activities which hew to the scientific method [wikipedia.org] and has nothing to do with one's personal beliefs about anything, including AGCC.
For the record (and I've stated this before on SN) I am not a climate scientist, nor can I personally verify every measurement, calculation or experimental observation made by real climate scientists. At the same time, I've seen no evidence of any vast conspiracy on the part of climate scientists to create and promulgate false results. Nor can I fathom how thousands of people who don't even know each other could benefit from such a conspiracy.
As such, unless someone has some actual evidence, I will treat the idea of a vast conspiracy to falsely promote AGCC the same way I treat the idea of the International Jewish Conspiracy. That is, with derision and disbelief.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr