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This discussion has been archived.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, @10:38PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Monday February 16 2015, @10:38PM (#145869) Homepage Journal

    Two sigma? So roughly 95% certain? I think not. I enjoy the certainty of physics too much to lower my standards to that degree.

    Which would all be fine if they would do that to prove their tools to be of a known degree of precision and accuracy and then report that degree. The only reason in the world not to is because you know your tools are shit and thus your conclusions reached from their measurements are shit. Well, no, there's also laziness.

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

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:20AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17 2015, @01:20AM (#145928)

    "Repetitious and repetitious" said the New York Times