Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics' 719
Layzej writes: Prominent scientists, science communicators, and skeptic activists, are calling on the news media to stop using the word "skeptic" when referring to those who refuse to accept the reality of climate change, and instead refer to them by what they really are: science deniers. "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."
News at 11.. (Score:4, Insightful)
And hackers would like the media to stop calling computer criminals hackers.
Re:News at 11.. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't get me started on pirates.
Re:News at 11.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:News at 11.. (Score:5, Funny)
And hot dogs contain only 0.01% dog.
Yes, but hot dogs are homeopathic food . . . so the lower percentage of dog, the stronger it tastes of doggy.
Or something like that.
I'm actually quite surprised that PETA hasn't thrown a hissy fit over the name "hot dog".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:News at 11.. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh look! An advertisement from 1906 calling copyright infringers "pirates".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Using teh term "pirates" to refer to copyright infringers is nothing new.
Bitching about it, however, is.
Re:News at 11.. (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't matter. I hear they had words in 1906 they routinely called black people that today are "frowned upon."
"Piracy" a pejorative meant to associate copyright infringement with theft, which it is not. Also murder, scurvy, and parrots.
On the flip side, I also don't like the term "sharing." It's an attempt to associate copyright infringement with an innocuous or altruistic endeavor. It's not.
Words mean things, and I wish people would use them correctly.
Copyright infringement: the illegal copying of a work protected by copyright.
Theft: The unlawful taking of someone's belongings with the intent to deprive them of their use.
Sharing: Willingly giving a portion of your possessions to another, denying you use or benefit thereof.
Copyright infringement is not theft, because the copyright holder is not denied their property. They still have it. (Assuming no trespass or theft of physical property was required to obtain the source material)
Copyright infringement is not sharing. If I share my cake with you, I have given up a portion of my delicious cake I can no longer eat. If I share a ride with you, I've given up my personal space and privacy. But if you copy my file, I haven't given up anything. We both have full use of the file.
Let's just call things what they are, and leave the emotionally loaded words out of it.
Re: (Score:3)
If I share my cake with you, I have given up a portion of my delicious cake I can no longer eat.
The cake is a lie!
Narrow definition of sharing used (Score:4, Insightful)
Overall I like the sentiment of the post made, but it falls apart at the point when it incorrectly defines sharing:
>> "Sharing: Willingly giving a portion of your possessions to another, denying you use or benefit thereof."
You have just redefined sharing for your own purpose. Your argument makes the same mistake it seeks to oppose, loading words for it's own purpose.
Sharing is not so limited in definition. I can "share" my knowledge with my students, and not be deprived of anything myself. In addition, I can share things that don't belong to me with others, although it might be illegal, it's still pretty clearly sharing. In particular, transferring information is definitely "sharing" and is not always illegal. I could be sharing information I created myself, perhaps my own artwork.
Even if your definition is copy pasted a dictionary definition, one particular dictionary definition does not suffice to fully define a word. Dictionaries are extremely simplified definitions written for quick reference. Etymology and semantics of words are much more complex. For example, even by just using other dictionaries I can find that a common definition is "to use or enjoy something jointly".
Specific types of copying can (and do) run afoul of particular laws, so "copyright infringement" meets your definition of it, but sharing simultaneously meets a definition of sharing that is more reasonable and widespread than that which you use. Copying itself, and in general, is not wrong. Whether particular copyright infringement is ethical or not depends on a lot of factors too complex to really get in to here (eg. the legitimacy of the laws in effect, the proper functioning of democracy, the consent of those governed, etc).
Re:News at 11.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sharing: Willingly giving a portion of your possessions
Bzzt. I can share hugs, music, friendship, laughter, pain, and joy with others, but I wouldn't call any of those "possessions".
to another, denying you use or benefit thereof.
That presumes scarcity. If I share your post on Twitter, you are not deprived of it. Neither would I be.
Re: (Score:3)
No, those are dictionary definitions. I didn't write webster's.
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright infringement is theft because it denies a copyright owner the ability to sell the product for which they have the copyright and thus they lose money.
Thanks for the nostalgia! I remember when people tried to claim that with a straight face back in the 80s, but no one believed it even then. Can you imagine that someone actually said that ridiculous crap in seriousness once? I'm glad we've moved past those ludicrously mind-bending contortions and can laugh about them now, knowing full well that no one actually thinks that way anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
And since setting up a competing brand does the exact same thing, it follows that competition is theft. Why do you hate freedom so much, comrade?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Excepting the script kiddies they are in most cases hackers.
Re:News at 11.. (Score:4, Informative)
Crackers and milk [Re:News at 11..] (Score:3, Informative)
The term Cracker is much more descriptive, draws a distinction between the two but, just never seemed to catch the ear of the media darlings the put on the news.
The problem is that the term " cracker [npr.org] " is already well established in use, a derogatory term referring to white people from the rural south.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Crackers and milk [Re:News at 11..] (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is that the term " cracker [npr.org] " is already well established in use, a derogatory term referring to white people from the rural south.
We prefer to be called "Saltine-Americans".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it very difficult to be offended by someone referring to me as a cracker, I'd have to stop laughing first.
That's your White Privilege (TM) talking.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is that most "crackers" are very skilled and as much hackers as those who don't do illegal things.
If one person with a certain level of skills choose to apply those skills on illegal stuff they still have those skills.
A math genius using math to swindle people is still a math genius.
A soldier using his training to murder people still have military training.
Re:News at 11.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A math genius using math to swindle people is still a math genius.
And would be referred to as a swindler, not primarily as a math genius.
A soldier using his training to murder people still have military training.
And would be referred to as a murderer, not primarily as a soldier.
If you asked members of the general public what a hacker is, you are most likely to get the definition of a cracker.
Re:News at 11.. (Score:4, Funny)
If you asked members of the general public what a hacker is, you are most likely to get the definition of a cracker.
That ship has sailed. Note that ships almost never have sails anymore, either, so that term has been hijacked also. And don't get me started about "hijack" being applied to word meaning...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I am sure if the media starts calling them Climate Deniers, the media (**Cough**FOX NEWS**Cough**) who support the other side will then probably calling climate scientist. Liberal Communist Hippies.
Too late.
Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In thinking further, I do seem to recall also learning back in college of a system of established dogma that cannot be questioned. I believe it was called "religion."
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Informative)
The whole point of emphasising the difference between an actual sceptic and a denier is that the sceptic questions the science, whereas the denier ignores it entirely. The scientists and others referred to in the article have no problem with the actual sceptics. Questioning the science is fine, disregarding it is not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"the denier ignores [science] entirely"
Do such people actually exist? (e.g., "scientist X, Y, Z don't have credibility with me" is not "ignoring science entirely".)
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:4, Interesting)
Hence why actual skeptics want to be distanced from them.
What constitutes an "actual" skeptic?
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
That's funny. The first definition on Google [google.com] states "a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.", which seems to be a good fit for those who are denying global warming. If anything, it seems as though the Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry should call themselves something different.
The Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry are Google Deniers.
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny. The first definition on Google [google.com] states "a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.", which seems to be a good fit for those who are denying global warming.
No, it isn't a good fit at all. There's a huge difference between "Hey, your models aren't making perfect predictions. It's possibly that you're incorrect about something." and "Climate Change is a liberal conspiracy to turn the fine God-fearing people of the United States into a bunch of commies."
Re: (Score:3)
Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration.
That's funny. The first definition on Google [google.com] states "a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.", which seems to be a good fit for those who are denying global warming.
Nope. "Questioning" implies that they'd pay attention to answers. "Denying" means that that they have no interest in answers; only in denying that it's real.
That's the difference between skeptics and deniers right there.
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Insightful)
No you havent. If youd been looking you wouldnt have said the stupid things you did.
Changes in behaviour are all but irrelevent for measles, polio, or smallpox. Its so contagious that if an infected person walks through a room, that room is contagious for as much as 4 hours after the person left. Ppeople were forcibly quarentined in their homes by law enforcement to prevent its spread, and even so it infected 3 to 4 million people each year in the United States. Of those people, 400 to 500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 developed encephalitis (brain swelling) from measles.
Yet within a couples year of the vaccine being introduced and a widespread vaccination program start measles cases plumetted, from millions per year to fewer than 20k. By the 1990s it was declared eliminated from the US, even though our population had doubled and more people lived in closer quarters in cities.
"at the same pressure"
You do realize that in order to be at "the same pressure" you have to be more than 50 km (50,000 meters, or >160,000 ft) above the surface of Venus?
that on the surface pressure is more than 90x greater than earths? and temperature is greater than 850F ?
what you said is an invalid comparison, a misdirection that relies on ignorance, and that is ultimately irrelevent.
(im not even sure its true, as im quite sure from the venus article earlier this week, that we established that even at the same pressure, the temperature is signifcantly higher)
If you cant find satisfactory answers, its either because you havent been lookng hard enough, or you simply lack the intellect.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does HIV mutate so often as to result in a wide diversity of variants within any one individual but then when a new person is infected they start with a single (or at least very few) variants?
Why expect every mutation to be equally infectious? This is typical virus behavior. It results both in the much lower infectiousness and lethality of viruses we actually see as well as creating a couple of evolutionary advantages. A swarm of mutated viruses means that the host's immune system can't easily target the viruses that are actually infectious. And killing the host slower or not at all means the virus has better long term propagation prospects.
anti-AGWers: Explain why the temp on Venus is 1.176 that of earth at the same pressure. Same ratio as expected for two black bodies.
So we should expect no change in temperature with a piling on of CO2 on Earth? Because they're black bodies? How again does that matter to "anti-AGWers" except as apparent confirmation of their opinions?
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why we should NEVER ever stop questioning "science". Newtonian Physics is wrong, but close enough to be functional in many circumstances. Science should be about continuous improvement, which requires ongoing skepticism.
Agreed, and this is what happens. Anyone who tries to publish a paper can tell you how much fun it is, even for papers that follow the current thinking in a particular field. I work with a couple scientists that published a paper in regards to climate change, and it took two years of sometimes colorfully worded review comments and re-submissions before it as accepted.
AGW or "climate change" is one of those things I simply do not believe is "settled science", mainly because of the huge number of variables, and the models and advocate predictions have completely been falsified.
And this is where you turn stupid and destroy whatever argument you were trying to make. Global warming as a result of increased greenhouse gases was discovered well over a century ago, and falls out quite readily as a result using some basic high school level chemistry and physics. The equation for determining the atmospheric forcing of CO2 was developed by Svante Arrhenius (a.k.a the father of modern chemistry) back in the 1890's, and it is still used today.
A much more difficult problem (and where the vast majority of research is going) is what will the effects on the climate will be. That requires advanced coupled models across multiple science domains.
Call me a denier all you want. I'm not denying the "Science" part of this (CO2).
Yes you are. You made unsubstantiated claims that all the results from current as well as historical climate research has been nothing but BS. You claim that global warming isn't "settled science" when it is a direct result of fundamental chemistry and physics that have been around for a century or more, the same chemistry and physics that are used in many other applications today. This is the very definition of a science denier.
I am denying the predictive hyperbole from the likes of Al Gore, who keeps making ridiculous claims, while having a huge Carbon Footprint (carbon offsets not withstanding).
AL GORE IS NOT A FUCKING CLIMATE SCIENTIST. Stop using him as a pariah for the climate science community, because he has NOTHING to do with climate science research. He does not publish papers. He does not perform climate research. He has no credentials for doing so, nor does he have any credentials in any related field. He is an activist for a cause he believes in, nothing more.
Using Al Gore as an EXCUSE for your ignorance would be like someone using Michele Bachman's claims as the reason why they don't get their kids vaccinated.
And if you are going to make fun of Fox News, great, but the real person you should make fun of is the stupid chicken littles who have been proven wrong, but continue to spew their idiocy and the climate lapdogs keep licking up.
Again, this is pure denier speak. Fox News has a documented history of misrepresenting science (among other things), especially climate science. The science has not been proven wrong. Not even remotely. That is, at best, willful ignorance on your part.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? McKitrick, McIntyre, Don Easterbrook, many others have their papers rejected for one nonsensical claim in them or another. Why? They don't toe the line of "AGW is the only possible explanation"...
FTFY
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"the denier ignores [science] entirely"
Do such people actually exist?
Yes they do. Mostly in countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia or the US. Many people still think, despite the evidence, that human activities have no impact on climate change. It's not scientist X, Y and Z that they do not trust. It's all scientists except X, Y and Z. And only because these 3 still deny climate change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of people believe in ghosts. Lots of people also believe in people who "think[] that human activities have no impact on climate change". There's about as much hard evidence in one of these beliefs as in the other.
When climate alarmists stop pretending that the dispute is over the degree of human influence on climate, and how much different countries should spend to mitigate anthropogenic climate change (or other kinds!), they might start to get traction with skeptics. Also when they start acting lik
Re: (Score:3)
Which people do you think I am describing? There certainly are a lot of weirdo extremists in the environmental-activist camp, but I wasn't really thinking about them. If you want me to ignore the weirdo extremists on that side, will you ignore the weirdo extremists on the other side? More significantly, will media and activists stop focusing on the (conveniently distracting) anti-AGW weirdo extremists so that we can pay more attention to what actually can and should be done?
What specific steps do the rea
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:4, Insightful)
Skepticism is a healthy attribute, it indicates critical thinking, and an open mind.
I have no problem with evolution or Darwin whatsoever, believe solar power will be a fantastic resource when it matures, would like to eventually see an end to use of fossil fuels as soon as it becomes economically feasible to do so, am skeptical of religion (IMO religion is conveniently pre-packaged cereal box spirituality
Additionally, all climate and weather forecasts, whether next weekend or 100 years from now, despite the differences, are based on computer models, which are far from infallible. For these reasons, I'm still skeptical; however, I'm not unable to be swayed, given further evidence that isn't dressed up with carbon taxes and other political aspects; additionally, it sure would help if all the celebrities endorsing the tenant of AGW actually practiced what they preached.
Science is a process, a living, dynamic, self-correcting process. It must never be wielded as dogma.
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Insightful)
NONE of that has anything to do with whether humans are responsible for climate change. All of your skepticism is around what do to about it and the extant of the warming.
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:4, Insightful)
You're really broadly generalizing though. Denying one controversial subject doesn't mean someone denies all science. Skepticism is a healthy attribute, it indicates critical thinking, and an open mind.
A skeptic may be ignorant, but is willing to learn. A real skeptic, upon gaining knowledge, will be able to more effectively question and argue the subject.
A denier is willfully ignorant and will never learn as a result. They can never effectively question or argue the subject because they are always arguing from a point of ignorance. You also can not convince them no matter how much evidence you have since they automatically dismiss anything that contradicts their ignorant views.
I have no problem with evolution or Darwin whatsoever, believe solar power will be a fantastic resource when it matures, would like to eventually see an end to use of fossil fuels as soon as it becomes economically feasible to do so, am skeptical of religion (IMO religion is conveniently pre-packaged cereal box spirituality /philosophy at best); and think creationism is a fairy tale;
All good and logical, but...
but whereas AGW is concerned, I'm skeptical (but open minded) because of all the politics and hypocrisy that surrounds it. Al Gore and friends drone on and on about the dangers of carbon dioxide and man's apocalyptic effect on the planet, then all go fly their fuel-hog private personal jets to a summit to discuss it.
And just like that, you go from skeptic to denier. Instead of ignoring the talking heads and cheer leaders and going right to the science (thousands of papers, petabytes of research), you latch on to it and then paint the entire scientific community (which has absolutely nothing to do with the politics or Al Gore) with the same brush.
Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Neither is Leonardo DiCaprio. They aren't. They don't have degrees in climate science. They've never published peer reviewed research on the subject.
As for the politics, that's policy makers. That's congress. Again, this has nothing to do with the science community. Congress does not approve papers, and the science community does not approve policy decisions.
The average rank and file climate scientist makes around $70K a year. Most programmer pull down more than that, and they don't need a Ph. D to do it. This "fly all over the place in private jets" bullshit is just that, bullshit. When I was working at NASA, the parking lots weren't full of shiny new Jags and BMWs. They were full of 10 year old Toyotas and Hondas. You don't become a climate scientists to get rich.
No respectable climate science I know of is predicting the end of the world, nor am I aware of any published research (including the IPCC reports) making any claims that global warming will kill of humanity. Again, that is simply more denial bullshit dredged up as an excuse to not listen to the science.
Same is true of Gore's personal practices (i.e. his house), he seems very unconcerned in practice about those things which he champions in print or video. Such a strong proponent is expected to lead by example. The UN says AGW is critical to address, yet China hasn't had to abide by any accords, being probably the worst pollution offender currently on the planet.
"They're not doing it so why do we have to?" This is a really poor excuse, again often used by deniers for some twisted justification for their thinking.
Additionally, all climate and weather forecasts, whether next weekend or 100 years from now, despite the differences, are based on computer models, which are far from infallible.
Another denier argument. All models are far from infallible. They're models; an imperfect representation and they always will be since, at least in this universe, since it is impossible to obtain perfect information about a system. The aerodynamic models for jet airc
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:4, Informative)
Of course such people exist. There is no science whatsoever that says that the earth is only 6000 years old, for example, so creationists who believe that are simply denying the science. They don't question the science, they reject it; there's a difference.
I use that as an example because it is more clear-cut than the climate issue, where there are a lot of people who hold a spectrum of views which are probably somewhere between being very skeptical and being outright deniers, but for sure there are those who pretty clearly aren't interested in any science that says man-made climate change might be real.
deniers and skeptics [Re:Established science] (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you simultaneously accept X while questioning X? Seems illogical.
Of course you can. Terms for this in the science community include "working hypothesis" and "the best current model" and phrases such as "subject to further analysis, we currently believe..."
Skeptical has synonyms such as :distrustfull, suspicious, unconvinced. These would all describe a person who is either a "denier" or a skeptic.
No. Deniers have made up their minds already; they are not "unconvinced" at all: they are firm believers. That's the difference between a denier and a skeptic.
So then what you are saying in reality is that anyone not accepting your way of thinking is a "denier" and that "You are either with us, or you are against us!"
No. Deniers have made up their minds already; they are not "unconvinced" at all. That's the difference between a denier and a skeptic: a skeptic can be convinced by evidence.
Established science can and has been and should be questioned as that is how we advance scientific knowledge and processes
There is a difference between paying attention to the science and denying the science. That difference is the difference between a skeptic and a denier.
When you start with the conclusion that the science is wrong because you don't like it-- you're not a skeptic.
A bit of difference [Re:deniers and skeptics] (Score:3)
There isn't much difference between the two religious camps, except one gets excused by the AGW proponents much more quickly.
One side shouts--LOUDLY-- that scientists are frauds, scientific results are a hoax, anybody paying attention to science is participating a "scam", and there's a worldwide conspiracy of scientists to defraud the public.
The other side doesn't.
I see a very clear difference.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But they DO have problems with actual skeptics. Look how people like Richard Lidzen are treated. How can you even say this with a straight face?
Skeptics and Deniers (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
Exactly.
A skeptic will ask questions, and will pay attention to the answers, open to the possibility of their views being changed by evidence. That's science.
A denier will pretend to ask questions, but with no real interest in the answers: their opinions are already set, and won't be changed. That's not science.
Deniers pretend to be skeptics. However, they are actually exactly the opposite: the distinguishing feature of deniers is not skepticism, but credulity-- they seen to credit pretty much anything they hear (or read on a blog somewhere)-- if it supports their pre-existing opinions.
(Amusingly, Fred Singer wrote an article making that exact point: "Deniers are giving us skeptics a bad name.")
Re:Skeptics and Deniers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe people are attacking climate science primarily based on their own preconceived beliefs. At this point most of the "debate" is about politics, economics and self interest. And very few people on either side seem truly motivated by what will happen 200, 100 or even 50 years from now.
If carbon emissions are an overriding concern, then we could relatively easily replace most of our carbon emissions with a large concerted nuclear power build-out in the next twenty years. One which would give us
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue with AGW believers (which I assume is the opposite of denier) is that they claim they have demonstrated scientific rigor in their hypothesis test when if their standards were applied to any other physical science they would be laughed out of the room. That claim can be based solely on the degrees of freedom that are assumed constant when it is clear they are not. For example, have we excluded the possibility of rising temperature changes are not affected by:
Undersea volcanoes! [Re:Skeptics and Deniers] (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the examples you give are typical examples of denier style of argumentation-- you just throw random stuff out, without even doing a back of the envelope calculation to ask whether what you're talking about is even close to being significant, on the assumption that you can make somebody else can waste their time explaining basic orders of magnitude to you. Basically: do some basic calculation before just randomly saying stuff like "undersea volcanoes! What about undersea volcanoes?"
What is the order of magnitude of the effect you're talking about? How does it compare to the effects driving climate? Has this been looked at by others? What have previous studies concluded?
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes constant questioning is at the heart of scientific inquiry however deliberate obfuscation of established science for political and economic objectives is not scepticism but subterfuge.
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes constant questioning is at the heart of scientific inquiry however deliberate obfuscation of established science for political and economic objectives is not scepticism but subterfuge.
I'm not sure which side you are arguing for.
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's rather arrogant to assume that all skeptics of global warming have a political/economic agenda. Many do, certainly. But I'm sure there are also plenty of legitimate scientists who would also question the conclusions and data, many of whom are no-doubt cowered into silence by the fervent majority.
And, on the other side of the coin, there are also plenty of global warming proponents who have their own economic/political agendas. The vast majority of the loudest global warming proponents are certainly not scientists. Most of them are environmental activists, with their own agenda to advance.
The bottom line is that you can't have legitimate science being conducted in an environment where you declare certain ideas sacrosanct and unquestionable. When the next Copernicus or Einstein comes along, do you really want to tell them that they're not allowed to question a fundamental idea that WE JUST KNOW IS TRUE!
Re: Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Insightful)
My stance in AGW is that you can bitch all you want about climate change, but if you're not willing to build a bunch of nuclear power plants and shut down a bunch of coal plants, then yes you ARE arguing global warming to advance a political agenda and nothing more.
If you don't back real solutions that can yield real results then I am going to call bullshit on your advocacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes, doing something without proper analysis is worse than not doing something.
Yeah, if only there were a well-funded organization sponsored by the UN that's spent three decades doing proper analysis of the problem.
I guess we don't have that so we can't propose proper solutions. Oh well.
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only the data and the conclusions, the models themselves. If you use a model to analyze the data and draw some conclusions from it and this model is unable to predict phenomena correctly you can certainly become skeptic about the conclusions you drawn from it. Recently, many models were put exactly in that position. Calling everyone a denier because he/she express some doubts about the conclusions of a model without any decent prediction capability is certainly an abuse of language and even bullying toward legitimate skepticism.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do not the people who have a vested interest in AGW not being true fund the research to prove it,
I'm sorry, but you have it exactly backwards. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. AWG proponents have made some huge claims that simply have not even come close to happening. Some, have actually been proven to be false on their own face (drowning polar bears).
One cannot prove a negative. This is the basis for "Innocent until proven guilty". What you've asked for is assume guilt, and prove innocence.
As for AGW, the only thing you can prove is increase in CO2. Everything else is conjecture ba
Re: (Score:3)
The scientist that proves that AGW is a lot of HooHaw (technical term) will win a Nobel prize. It should be simple to do really, and the Koch Brothers should be able to provide for his or her future so they don't have to worry one iota about the mean scientists at Universities "cowing" them. Simply shifting that money should do the trick.
They have and all that happens is another skeptical scientist gets turned into a non-skeptic.
The best example is Richard A. Muller, Professor if Physics at Berkley who was very critical of climate science and was sponsored by the Koch brothers to do exhaustive research on climate science and ended up convinced it is real, humans are mostly responsible and that prior estimates of global warming are correct. Not very good results for the deniers.
Use Google for lots of results or start here with a fairly reput
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that since the vested interests are choosing the political attack route, they probably do know it is credible, they just don't care.
The problem is who are the vested interests? The AGW scientists attack anything skeptical of AGW, and prevent everything being published. What science do you consider credible when it cannot be published in the journals?
Re: Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Insightful)
When you deny the evidence, slander the scientists, buy into conspiracy theories, you're not honestly asking questions. You're "questioning" climate science the same way creationists "question" evolution.
Re: Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:4, Informative)
Constantly questioning is running experiments, taking measurements, and trying to model the future and see how well it lines up with reality. Scientists are doing that all the time, and the result
And the result is that for decades we've overestimated the effect of CO2 and that all the computer models are wrong. [ed.ac.uk] If you deny that after the multiple studies have shown it, then you're the denier.
Re: (Score:3)
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012)
Anybody adjusting their periods to start at an extreme outlier year has been picking too much cherries. Here's 1998 in context: https://tamino.files.wordpress... [wordpress.com] and anybody can see we haven't really broken any trend.
Re: Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
FTA: "Skepticism is all about critical examination, evidence-based scientific inquiry, and the use of reason in examining controversial claims. Those who flatly deny the results of climate science do not partake in any of the above. "
Re: (Score:3)
You don't question the science by simply asking arbitrary nonsensical questions or pushing long debunked theories though. You have to actually do science and come up with some results that bring into question the pre-existing science.
If you believe your college taught you that you can defeat an established scientific theory by repeatedly asking arbitrary questions about it then you either weren't listening or your college was shit and you need a refund.
I know it's hard, I know it means that to question the
Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
But surely, then, you remember that science doesn't stop at the question. You need to actually do research. In climate science, that means collecting data and building a model. I think it is noteworthy that no AGW opponent has built a model.
Re: (Score:3)
"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m
Re: (Score:3)
So the climate scientists' responses to the poor temperature prediction has been to improve the models and look for why there is a discrepancy. That is scientific. The unscientific thing to do is mine Google for items which reinforce your opinion on the matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, because the science that I learned about in college was ALL ABOUT being constantly questioned.
Hence the desire to honor true skepticism. Science deniers are nothing of the sort. No, they are not.
Armchair denial is not questionning science (Score:3)
Climate change denier, usually the same people which respond to criticism with "hey science is a religion you can't question it" are usually armchar people havign read a blog or two or have a poltical ground and have no fucking clue about the real state of climate
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fate of the human race is at stake.
No, actually it's not. This is the kind of hyperbolic nonsense that makes it so hard to take the alarmist crowd seriously. It also gives ammunition to the deniers/skeptics/whatever-you-want-to-call-them. Project the worst case scenario for climate change and the human race survives. People in developing countries don't do so well and even the developed world takes a hit (higher food prices, greater frequency of natural disasters, and so on) but the human race isn't going anywhere. Homo sapiens quite pr
Scandalgate! (Score:4, Funny)
And I want all journalists to stop adding a -gate suffix to political scandals! Also, Santa, I would like...
Re: (Score:2)
And I would like people to stop calling charity events that last 24 hours [activity]-athon
The plain of Marathon is a place in Greece, athon is not a suffix meaning an endurance event.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You can call them anything you want, but they are following the scientific method to the extent allowed by the nature of an observational science. They self-identify as scientists. AGW opponents do not have a single model that they can point to, and as far as I know, no prominent AGW opponent is working on a model. They can self-identify as scientists if they want, but they certainly aren't sticking to "their" philosophy.
George Carlin (Score:2)
Why not just call them "non-believers"... (Score:2, Insightful)
...and burn them at the stake as witches? That aught to take care of those pesky people who disagree.
Because scientific theories have always been infallible, haven't they?
Oh, Science, please go back to the lab and transmute some gold or something.
Re:Why not just call them "non-believers"... (Score:4, Insightful)
No they havent been infallible, but when they fall, they fall as the result of evidence based science... ...not cranks with "conclusions based a priori convctions" (to quote the article).
Of all the nerve... (Score:2)
By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry.
How can people who perpetrate misnomers have the nerve to call themselves "journalists"?
Oh boy, rewind to the Spanish Inquisition! (Score:3, Insightful)
Beyond that, these scientists might find more traction for their beliefs if they could get away from the folks who are peddling 'solutions' for AGW. You know, the activists who want to make energy so expensive that poor people will have to live in dark, cold homes, and gasoline so expensive that they have to stay in those cold, dark homes.
I imagine, however, that any activist or scientist advocating the use of 'denier/(heritic)' has substituted Gaia for God, and would be very happy to burn their opponents at the stake.
As for me, I'm not qualified to analyze the science. Instead, I'll consider the matter when the people who say it's a problem act like it's a problem. Until their personal conduct matches their words- buying carbon credits ('indulgences') doesn't count- then it's just a continuation of prior climate panics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh boy, rewind to the Spanish Inquisition! (Score:4, Interesting)
Denying Catastrophism, not Science (Score:4, Insightful)
When you actually look at the science itself, it's pretty clear. And nowhere near what the proponents claim.
For that matter, when you look at the history of AGW catastrophism, you see a lot of, well, denial. By the people whose predictions failed miserably.
So far we have NOT seen an increase in the number and size of hurricanes. We have also NOT seen an increase in droughts, an increase in tornado numbers or strength, a decrease in winter snow, or a number of other things. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of events that were predicted as part of CAGW that have not happened (and in many cases, the reverse has come to pass).
We still have a fairly icy polar ice cap (the "sciency" prediction from just a few years back was that it would effectively be gone by now).
We're also about 0.1 C below the low-end value of over 95% of predictions for global temperatures (and 0.5 C below the "most probable" number). That in itself invalidates CAGW as a scientific theory.
Yes, the Earth has warmed. Yes, some of it has been due to CO2 increases by humans.
But the amount - and the results - are both badly blown predictions. That means that the followers of CAGW are, by and large, denying science because it didn't give them the result they wanted.
Re:Denying Catastrophism, not Science (Score:4, Informative)
When you actually look at the science itself, it's pretty clear. And nowhere near what the proponents claim.
For that matter, when you look at the history of AGW catastrophism, you see a lot of, well, denial.
No credible scientists is predicting the end of the world. Nor have the ever done so. Our actions have consequences. The consequences are going to cause problems. That's it.
By the people whose predictions failed miserably. So far we have NOT seen an increase in the number and size of hurricanes.
I guess you don't read, or have really poor comprehension skills. The latest IPCC report indicates that BY THE END OF THIS CENTURY (that is, 2100) that Atlantic hurricanes will decrease in number but increase in strength. Pacific hurricances (typhoons) are expected to increase in number and increase in strength. Seeing as how we are a long ways away from 2100 and these projections were made just few years ago, your claim is completely unsupported.
We have also NOT seen an increase in droughts
Again, the projections are for the END OF THIS CENTURY. Your claim is unsupported.
an increase in tornado numbers or strength
The climatology of tornadoes is not mentioned in any credible research I'm aware of. Mesoscale cyclone generation is far to small to be picked up with any reasonable skill in climate models. Straight from the IPCC report There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms.
a decrease in winter snow
Actually, snow cover is supposed to increase then decrease by the end of the century. The increase in snow is a result of increased water vapor. The water vapor increase will be felt before the temperatures become warm enough to decrease overall snow cover. But again, the decrease is by 2100.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of events that were predicted as part of CAGW that have not happened (and in many cases, the reverse has come to pass).
Complete bullshit. Climatological projections are for decades into the future. You're not going to see changes in span of a handful of years. Go ahead and try to find a peer reviewed research paper that we are supposed to have any statistically significant deviations on a sub decadal scale. You won't find one.
We still have a fairly icy polar ice cap (the "sciency" prediction from just a few years back was that it would effectively be gone by now).
Bullshit. The modelling consensus in the reviewed literature has a projection that the arctic will have an ice free summer by 2050. Some models have this happening by 2035. But not a single credible reviewed source has ever made any claim that the arctic would have an ice free summer by now.
We're also about 0.1 C below the low-end value of over 95% of predictions for global temperatures (and 0.5 C below the "most probable" number). That in itself invalidates CAGW as a scientific theory.
Bullshit. Your ignoring short term weather impacts on global temperatures as well as ignoring oceanic heat content and simply looking at surface temperature. Again, if you read the section in the IPCC on how the models work and what the projections actually represent.
But of course, you're already ignoring the fact that climatological significance is measured over multi-decadal periods so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Yes, the Earth has warmed. Yes, some of it has been due to CO2 increases by humans. But the amount - and the results - are both badly blown predictions.
Only if your completely ignorant on the topic, which you have shown yourself to be.
That means that the followers of CAGW are, by and large, denying science because it didn't give them the result they wanted.
Why the fuck would anyone want global warming to happen?
Backfire (Score:4, Insightful)
This will backfire. The idiots driving this would associate dissent on climate change predictions with folks who reject the historical fact of the Holocaust, the only other place where the term "deniers" is routinely used.
You can't have a brain in your head and seriously think that the modern climate change predictions have a comparable level of certainty to the historical fact of the holocaust. This sort of gross overreach is obvious even to mere mortals who can't readily follow the scientific arguments for or against global warming. It makes the speaker, and every other claim he makes, suspect.
The media has done climate change scientists a great favor by labeling the folks who still challenge the predictions as "skeptics." That word carries connotations of government conspiracy and alien abductions. It's a gift.
As long as we're being more specific.... (Score:3)
I'll trade the label of 'skeptic' for 'science denier' sure, but I'd ask that people stop using the blanket term 'climate change' when they really mean 'a host of sweeping economic, societal, and governmental changes that spend $billions and $trillions to effect what we optimistically expect to be trivial changes in a dynamic system that we mostly don't really understand and have been unable to reliably predict, and which only coincidentally SEEM to conform to a leftist agenda that otherwise nobody was listening to'.
That'd be great, thanks!
I deny that San Francisco underwater by 2010 (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose I'm a global warming denier, by the common standard here on Slashdot. The global warming alarmists and pitchmen said "San Francisco will be underwater by 2010". Unfortunately, it's still there.
That's one of two big problems for the global warming camp. Well-known leaders of that movement have publicly admitted to organized, widespread lying and intentional exaggeration in order to "spur the public to action". I deny that they've been telling the truth, and they agree! Has the "science" gotten any better? Well, we know that a typical volcano releases a couple tons of CO2 each day. A few months ago, there was an "OMG Global Warming!" story here on Slashdot that reported atmospheric CO2 levels rising more than expected - based on measuring CO2 on a friggin a volcano! Which is kind of like reporting global average humidity based on moisture measurements taken below Niagra Falls.
There IS some good science supporting global warming, but the alarmist stuff makes better headlines, so 90% of the "science" reported is complete junk, obviously so. I reject all claims based on this utter junk pseudo-science.
The second problem is more recent. Every president has their slush fund, a federal program or two which they use to send tax money to their donors, who send some back as campaign donations. It just so happens that THIS president's slush funds are included in the $100 billion we're spending on "green". For example, the tax payers loaned over a half a billion dollars to Fisker to develop their electric car. Fisker turned right around and handed millions of it to Obama and other Democrats. There's nothing new about that, of course, other than the exchange of greenbacks is normally labeled "green energy" right now. That makes anything labeled "green energy" or "save the planet" inherently suspicious, just like Haliburton contracts were suspicious when Cheney was in the White House. We know that any proposal to spend "half a billion for green energy" means $10 million for the DNC, $10 million for Hillary's campaign, $10 million split between a few congress-critters, $50 million for their CEO friend's golden parachute, and $420 million to who-knows-where. Again, not new - Haliburton was the same. "Green" is the new "Haliburton".
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose I'm a global warming denier, by the common standard here on Slashdot. The global warming alarmists and pitchmen said "San Francisco will be underwater by 2010". Unfortunately, it's still there.
No, you're not a denier. You're just regular old run-of-the-mill stupid. I can't even find a denialist bullshit opinion blog where this lie comes from, let alone any credible source.
That's one of two big problems for the global warming camp.
You're right. Deniers are completely ignorant and just make shit up to validate their ideology. That's a big problem for actual scientists and logical people trying to determine the best course of action to take.
Well-known leaders of that movement have publicly admitted to organized, widespread lying and intentional exaggeration in order to "spur the public to action".
Leaders? The climate science community doesn't have "leaders". In the public space, there are activists but they are n
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Global Warming Skeptics??? (Score:4, Interesting)
They dont account for the sun?
Son, that the was among the first things they looked at.
And theyve looked at it several times since.
It's not the sun, son.
If it was the sun, we would be cooling right now.
The 11yr cycle bit is also misleading: there is some periodicity, but there is a lot of noise in that signal, as shown in this graph (which also conventiently shows that temperatures, and solar output have been moving in opposite directions for the past 35 years): http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
From: http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They dont account for the sun?
Son, that the was among the first things they looked at.
And theyve looked at it several times since.
It's not the sun, son.
If it was the sun, we would be cooling right now.
The 11yr cycle bit is also misleading: there is some periodicity, but there is a lot of noise in that signal, as shown in this graph (which also conventiently shows that temperatures, and solar output have been moving in opposite directions for the past 35 years): http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
From: http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
It's the sun. And no, according to the guys who actually study this sort of thing, we're not far enough into the solar minimum to be in an actual cooling phase yet. Give it a couple more years.
No, the CAGW fans didn't look at the sun "first" - and they keep looking everywhere else. I had a climate scientist angrily tell me that "insolation is a constant!" Not according to the astronomers, it isn't.
What's even more fun is that, even if you treat total solar irradiance as a (very wobbly) constant, you have mo
Re: (Score:3)
This is a pretty good illustration of being a denier rather than a sceptic:
The problem with the notion of "science denier" is that is entirely too close in concept to "heretic". The AGW advocates are entirely religious in their zeal, and their religious belief is that the End Is Near, and We Must All Repent!
Straw man. The discussion is scientific, not religious, and you're distorting what the scientists are saying. If you have scientifically valid objections against the current state of the science you are very welcome to the debate. If you just object because you don't like what the scientists are saying, you're a science denier. Nobody will burn you at any stake, but nobody will take you serious either.
Remember, before Al Gore got into politics and invented his own Church of Warmism, he had flunked out of Divinity School. Being the High Priest of Warming, he has invented his own religion - and every religion has to have heretics.
Shooting the messenger. You may
Re:Science is on the skeptical side of this debate (Score:5, Informative)