(June 24, 2011 at 7:54 am)Ziggystardust Wrote: When the term climate change skeptic is used it denotes one who has doubts about human caused climate change.

That's cool, it's merely annoying when used for those who would disagree with all other definitions, and also drop the "climate change" part of the term.

(June 24, 2011 at 8:09 am)martin02 Wrote:

(June 24, 2011 at 7:54 am)Ziggystardust Wrote: When the term climate change skeptic is used it denotes one who has doubts about human caused climate change.

That's cool, it's merely annoying when used for those who would disagree with all other definitions, and also drop the "climate change" part of the term.

That was exactly my point... If those of us active in the sceptics movement or those with a scientific scepticism viewpoint are annoyed at some religious buffoon calling themselves a sceptic towards climate change it's our own fault for using a term with correct usage contrary to our position.

(June 24, 2011 at 9:39 pm)theVOID Wrote: That was exactly my point... If those of us active in the sceptics movement or those with a scientific scepticism viewpoint are annoyed at some religious buffoon calling themselves a sceptic towards climate change it's our own fault for using a term with correct usage contrary to our position.

Yes, it's my fault that dogmatics use the term sceptic for "God has informed me otherwise".

I'm not sure you know what you are implying.

(June 25, 2011 at 10:58 am)martin02 Wrote: Yes, it's my fault that dogmatics use the term sceptic for "God has informed me otherwise".

1. That's a lazy generalisation, I could find you a lot of left-wing conspiracy theorists who are also climate sceptics. There are also some (but not as many) who are neither Right wing or left wing kooks who are sceptical of climate change.

2. There are plenty who are sceptical of climate change, either it's anthropogenic origins or it's severity, who are general 'sceptics' in that they are sceptial of most if not all paranormal phenomenon but aren't persuaded by the evidence for AGW - At worst you could argue that their scepticism is unfounded.

3. There are people who are 'scientific sceptics' who are sceptical of climate change, people who use a scientific basis for their acceptance of certain claims but aren't persuaded by the evidence for AGW - At worst you could say they are being inconsistent in their application of science or reason.

4. Even if all of your lazy generalisations were true it's still beside the point, When someone calls themselves or is referred to as a "climate sceptic" they convey the meaning that this person is secpitcal of climate change, nothing more, nothing less. Arguing that someone can't call themselves a climate sceptic because they aren't sceptical of anything else is plainly nonsense.

(June 28, 2011 at 4:21 am)theVOID Wrote: 1. That's a lazy generalisation, I could find you a lot of left-wing conspiracy theorists who are also climate sceptics. There are also some (but not as many) who are neither Right wing or left wing kooks who are sceptical of climate change.

Any or all of this might be relevant if the subject were climate sceptics and/or sceptics, whether they are the same thing, whether there is an overlap, or the nature of scepticism or climate scpeticism. And I can see why you're trying to open it out; without knowing whom the subject of the thread is you're only going to make inroads by sheer luck.

There is only one subject; I haven't cited their identity, you haven't asked. Feel free to continue arguing the nature of scpeticism, it might get good.

I'll go there through analogy.

Jerry Falwell was fond of attributing AIDS to God, say this was in the nature of a belief that God directly caused AIDS rather than it being conveyed through a retrovirus (I'm not sure this isn't literally true of his beliefs). Say this was a position he and his followers called "AIDS scepticism", that is denial it had any medical cause rather than a theological one. It's then a big step to go from attributing their belief in this positive theory (such as it is) to calling it simply "scepticism" when what you're actually looking at is the reverse of their theory.

Ditto the fact that their belief system, its traditions and the identities involved are actively hostile to the very concept of sceptisism.

martin02 you get further from a sane rational thought with every example you present. And about your venn diagram; it would lead one to believe that only right wing lunatics who were also climate sceptics are the only true sceptics.

It's merely the identity of the people I' m discussing.