Thanks, David. I like that definition. If one follows it, one cannot label as "Climate denier" people who -- are uncertain about whether changes in climate are caused by human activity -- think that climate models are unreliable or worthless -- think that climate change is not a threat -- think that human impact on climate is small -- think that that there's nothing man can do that will help significantly, under today's technology
Huh? Your very first point directly contradicts the exact wording of the definition.
I would still use "denier" for your other four points, though, depending in how much reasoning and explication is behind the claim. Merriam-Webster's definition is too narrow, I think most people who follow the field closely would say.
David -- I think most people who use the term would use it more broadly than M-W's definition. In fact, I think it's sometimes used as an all-purpose insult for someone who disagrees with you about some aspect of climate change. A parallel is the word "fascist". It has mostly lost its actual meaning. It has become a kind-of all-purpose epithet that is sometimes used to insult conservatives.
I don't think my first point contradicts the definition. There's a difference between denying that man's activity is affecting the climate vs. being uncertain about whether man's activity affects the climate.
Yes, I agree with you about "fascist." Course, it's used to insult the left, too, like Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism."
You're right, there's a difference between your point #1 and the dictionary's difference. But there really isn't any scientific uncertainty that climate change is due to humans, so "denier" would cover both, IMO.
Thanks for your agreement, David. I know this is a quibble, but I get hyper over quantifiers. There really isn't any scientific uncertainty that SOME climate change is due to humans.
L: Yes, but few of those who question climate science are real skeptics -- they don't properly deal in evidence. Hence the origination of the word "denier," or, as some use, "pseudo-skeptic" or "fake skeptic."
Even more than most -- some scientists say 110% of modern warming is due to humans, since naturally the climate should be cooling right now (negative solar trend, a little Milankovitch).
9 comments:
Thanks, David. I like that definition. If one follows it, one cannot label as "Climate denier" people who
-- are uncertain about whether changes in climate are caused by human activity
-- think that climate models are unreliable or worthless
-- think that climate change is not a threat
-- think that human impact on climate is small
-- think that that there's nothing man can do that will help significantly, under today's technology
Cheers
Huh? Your very first point directly contradicts the exact wording of the definition.
I would still use "denier" for your other four points, though, depending in how much reasoning and explication is behind the claim. Merriam-Webster's definition is too narrow, I think most people who follow the field closely would say.
Thanks for your comments and discussion, David.
David -- I think most people who use the term would use it more broadly than M-W's definition. In fact, I think it's sometimes used as an all-purpose insult for someone who disagrees with you about some aspect of climate change. A parallel is the word "fascist". It has mostly lost its actual meaning. It has become a kind-of all-purpose epithet that is sometimes used to insult conservatives.
I don't think my first point contradicts the definition. There's a difference between denying that man's activity is affecting the climate vs. being uncertain about whether man's activity affects the climate.
Cheers
Yes, I agree with you about "fascist." Course, it's used to insult the left, too, like Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism."
You're right, there's a difference between your point #1 and the dictionary's difference. But there really isn't any scientific uncertainty that climate change is due to humans, so "denier" would cover both, IMO.
DiC's first point must be correct. "Deny" means refusal to admit the truth. Someone who is uncertain could be convinced with evidence.
Thanks for your agreement, David. I know this is a quibble, but I get hyper over quantifiers. There really isn't any scientific uncertainty that SOME climate change is due to humans.
Cheers
L: Yes, but few of those who question climate science are real skeptics -- they don't properly deal in evidence. Hence the origination of the word "denier," or, as some use, "pseudo-skeptic" or "fake skeptic."
"There really isn't any scientific uncertainty that SOME climate change is due to humans."
The consensus is that most, if not all (or more), of the warming in the last 50 years is due to humans.
Even more than most -- some scientists say 110% of modern warming is due to humans, since naturally the climate should be cooling right now (negative solar trend, a little Milankovitch).
Post a Comment