Sceptics and Climate Sceptics

[martin02]

Dear media,
Please stop referring to climate sceptics as "sceptics". The terms are not interchangeable.
Yours sincerely,
Annoyed.

[HeyItsZeus]

That god dam media is always screwing us over!
So..what are we discussing?

[theVOID]

Dear media,
Please stop referring to climate sceptics as "sceptics". The terms are not interchangeable.
Yours sincerely,
Annoyed.

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

Sceptic means "a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs", it says nothing about whether or not they are correct or scientific or rational or even that they have considered that which they are doubting.

Perhaps the Skeptics movement should have chosen a label more like "Scientific Skeptics" or "Rational debunkers" rather than something that can often accurately describe some positions contrary to their own - Now they're upset that "climate change deniers" are correctly using the term sceptic in regards to their stance on the accepted position? Tough shit.

Yours sincerely,
theVOID (Not a climate change sceptic).

That god dam media is always screwing us over!

Yeah, because you're the product. The media shills aren't out to give you good TV, they're out to sell you to the advertisers. The audience is the bag of chips to the corporations fat kid and the media are the checkout operator.

[Shell B]

Dear media,
Please stop referring to climate sceptics as "sceptics". The terms are not interchangeable.
Yours sincerely,
Annoyed.

When I am writing an article about something wacky, such a UFO presumed to be extraterrestrial by weirdos, I use the word skeptic without clarifying whether they are UFO skeptics or all around skeptics. I let the context of the article explain the use of the word. I think it is possible to use the word and make it clear what the skeptics you are referring to are skeptical about without coming right out and saying it. Maybe I am missing something here.

[martin02]

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

~Christianity
~Right wing politics
~"Family values"
~That filtering the 'net is both feasible and desirable
~Any minority opinion is valid if you can claim it the work of a nameless consultant
~Any part of science which allows you to turn the environment into the economy
~We still won't tell you who our consultant is, but they're an expert and you're not allowed to disagree with them
~A national plebiscite on carbon tax, which if it happens to deliver an outcome they don't like, will be ignored
~Stop asking about our consultant, they certainly do exist

And odd beliefs such as:

~Divorce contributes to global warming
~Young Earth Creationism
~Intelligent Design
~Evolution should be taught on the syllabus in context of a range of theories, primarily Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design
~Any video game rating higher than "M" will lead inevitably and exclusively to prevalence of "rape games" (and if anyone attempts to bring up this or any other IT topic, scream "rape games" with increasing volume and hysteria until they stop)

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.

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.

[The Magic Pudding]

I prefer to label the climate change "sceptics" as contrarians.
You can have healthy scepticism, these guys seem far from offering a healthy argument.

[martin02]

And I prefer to think of them as the bad guys in the animated credits of the '60s Batman tv show, except instead of having sound effects such as "BAM", "POW" and "KABLAM" drawn in as the mighty fists of scientific consensus strike, they get "EVIDENCE", "MODELING" and "COMMON SENSE".

[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

[martin02]

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

Other than it being a quote (of Humpty) it's prefaced with the word "not". Meaning not.

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.

Entirely relevant, as first you'd have to explain how this title applied to these specific people holding these specific views is not incongruous. As I haven't even cited any names I don't think it's feasible, but I'll withhold judgment until I see your argument.
It's not about sceptics or people known as sceptics, rather some specific people referred to as sceptics, in the most unusual media misnomer since the last one.

Firstly, you're generalising to an absurd degree - .

You can't seriously be accusing me of generalising from specifics--not to be Humpty Dumpty ...

And for the record, I know of someone who is sceptical of climate change ...

And the Himalayas are quite tall at this time of year. If that was my argument it might be relevant.

So again, your candidate would be: not a sceptic, ideologically and theologically hostile to the very concept of scepticism, and now aligned with climate scepticism. And thus a sceptic. But not a sceptic. And potentially very cross if you call them a sceptic. But currently called a sceptic. And self identified as a sceptic. And most of all not a scepetic. And of course the people I'm thinking of. And not a sceptic while being a sceptic. Ad infinitum ...

So one more time: it's nothing to do with people who are either or. Rather, those who would not be considered sceptics in any sense other than this instance. As if the media decided "child" was an appropriate abbreviation for "child murderer". If you can find one who conforms to both conditions (is hostile to all scepticism other than climate scepticism), without violating the spirit of either (is sensible in refuting all doubt other than this, and imposing all other dogma upon society) I suppose you can then refute by explaining how it doesn't annoy me.

[Justtristo]

Dear media,
Please stop referring to climate sceptics as "sceptics". The terms are not interchangeable.
Yours sincerely,
Annoyed.

According to the dictionary the term skeptic can be defined as the following.
n.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy
a. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
b. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? b.c.).

When the term climate change skeptic is used it denotes one who has doubts about human caused climate change.