Slashdot Mirror
Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
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."
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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...
From: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
At some point the media should be called to task for saying something like: "The senator, a prominent round Earth skeptic...", when instead they should just say: "The senator is delusional." Keep in mind that this statement was prepared by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Their name is tarnished when science deniers co-opt it. It was not signed by climate scientists - rather it was signed by physicist and science communicators. (and of course the members of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry).
Back to reality, we have seen more typhoons in Asia. Just because the jet stream shifted and the Eastern US hasn't gotten hit, doesn't mean that storms are weakening around the world. There have been major droughts in many places around the world, not just California & Texas. Snow levels have fallen in Europe, but the difference between snow and rain is only a few degrees. And the ice cap is still shrinking in the arctic, and it's not that it will be gone, but the northwest passage will be open and that it will continue to melt faster as the water absorbs more energy than the ice in the Summer. And the ice is only expanding in the Antarctic because fresh water freezes faster than salt water.
Hence why actual skeptics want to be distanced from them.
What constitutes an "actual" skeptic?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
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?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com