Sceptics and Climate Sceptics

[theVOID]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise Sceptic meant "Agrees with loosely affiliated group of people x".

Not to be Humpty Dumpty said about this (words mean what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less)

Words mean what you chose them to mean? Well that's rather telling isn't it...

but sceptic also doesn't mean "agrees with all the benefits of science but denies its usefulness as a tool or scientific consensuses as a form of truth only where convenient".

If I'd claimed that's what it meant you'd have a point but since I didn't you don't. For someone to be a sceptic, either in general or on a specific issue, they must only question the commonly accepted position, there is no necessity that their questioning of the position be scientifically based, that is why I suggested above the term 'scientific sceptic' for those who approach issues scientifically and are dubious of certain claims on that basis.

I am myself just that kind of sceptic, that does not mean I or people with a similar position have some monopoly on it's use, especially not to the point where we can reasonably criticise someone else for rightly claiming they are sceptical of x, whatever x is and whatever their reasons for being sceptical of x are.

There were people in pre scientific cultures who were sceptical of a range of claims from politics to religion, to imply they were not sceptics because it wasn't scientifically based is bollocks, which is exactly what your 'chosen definition' would lead to.

Particularly when these specific media darlings have a whole range of beliefs in common, which seem incongruous with scepticism:

And odd beliefs such as:

Completely irrelevant to the point at hand, that is, what it means to be sceptical of something and whether or not someone would rightly be called a sceptic for doubting a given proposition. Being a sceptic does not imply that you have a scientific epistemology, are rational or have any other reason for doubt.

And best of all, they have the polar opposite view; if they'd been referred to as "sceptics" at any other point in history or in any other context, they'd complain. It's only now that "sceptic" has become a code for a range of far less palatable names they accept the title.

Firstly, you're generalising to an absurd degree - not everyone who is sceptical of climate change is , you're also ignoring a range of subjects for which even someone with those loony beliefs and attitudes you mentioned could be said to be sceptical, such as scepticism towards the truth of a politician's statements, sceptical of the sexuality of the effeminate guy at work, sceptical that your partner who sucks at cooking really made dinner themselves etc...

Secondly, even if someone was only ever said to be a sceptic regarding a single issue, saying "S is sceptical of P" is still a legitimate use of the word.

If you are diagnosed with a terminal disease and suddenly doubt this one specific part of medical science and no other they don't say you're "in scepticism". There's a whole other term for that.

And now you're interchanging between the Skeptics movement and scepticism as a term describing an attitude towards a proposition, they are different things.

And for the record, I know of someone who is sceptical of climate change and a prominent figure in the Skeptics movement, Maynard from the Skeptic Zone podcast from Australia. James Randi also changed many of his conclusions about AGW, some would consider him a climate change sceptic too, thought I believe he's relaxed his position somewhat, http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swif...sited.html