Originally shared by Travis Retzlaff
According to the new official style rules, people can no longer be "climate change deniers" or "climate change skeptics."
---
... the willful refusal of "those who reject mainstream climate science" to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence in the world is giving actual skeptics a bad name.
---
Instead, the new AP Stylebook recommends the use of "climate change doubters" or "those who reject mainstream climate science." They do not, however, forbid the use of other pejorative insults to describe the willful ignorance of this vocal minority.
http://www.upworthy.com/the-ap-stylebook-just-changed-the-meaning-of-global-warming-with-one-amazing-edit?c=ufb1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
LEGO Americana Roadshow: Building Across America I just checked out this traveling exhibition from LEGO and was quite impressed. The scale ... -
Merry Christmas, everyone!
-
When we let politics trump science, people are needlessly put in harm's way. http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/self-censoring-fears...
"""
ReplyDeleteInstead, the new AP Stylebook recommends the use of "climate change doubters" or "those who reject mainstream climate science."
"""
Wonderful!
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Liberal National Party of Australia; no single extreme weather event is proof of climate change. They are most definitely climate change deniers. We are having more frequent droughts and more severe storms and fires, what more do they need. The truth is they are just lap dogs to big business and the oil industry.
ReplyDeleteThe last resource I would turn to for definitions of these terms would be one used by mass media...just saying.
ReplyDeleteAs a member of a skeptic society, I would advice against calling denialists 'doubters' as though they were actually searching for evidence, or even just waiting for evidence to show up.
ReplyDeleteAndres Soolo I'd be fine with "denialists".
ReplyDeleteAndres Soolo The proof is plastered all over the net. You're definitely a 3% "doubter."
ReplyDeleteJoey Bagodonuts: ?
ReplyDeleteAndres Soolo, is not a climate change doubter...he's a skeptic of another sort.
ReplyDeleteNature rules, "The nail that sticks out eventually gets hammered down".
ReplyDeletevery nice
ReplyDeleteThree comments deleted from this thread, without even a peep of explanation, Craig Froehle?
ReplyDeleteJames Salsman, keeping off-topic personal attacks (no matter how subtle) out and the discussion on-topic. Don't want your comments deleted? Then don't go bringing in irrelevant references to other discussions. Oh, and any future rebuttals to this statement will also be deleted.
ReplyDeleteGood job Craig Froehle...continue keeping the thread on topic.
ReplyDeleteIMNSHO - I'm tired of trying to remember labels, and butt-hurting folks because I use the wrong label. It's simple, science (the limit of our knowledge) currently states, by 97%, that we, man, have/has a dramatic effect on this planet. It also states, we have the capability to do something about it.
Shifting gears into economics...economists state these changes suggested by the scientific community would have a dramatic effect on the global, national, and regional economies.
Ok, no arguments...for me, both are correct statements.
But, I just want to point out few things...we can create a different economy that is symbiotic with the physics of this planet. We can't change the physics of this planet to serve the economy. There is no arguing this point...period.
Until science has the capability to terra-form...we are stuck with what we have. And currently, that means we are observing massive 'disasters' that are costing billions in rebuilding monies to pretend everything is the same. The very necessity of 'rebuilding monies' should be the observable catalyst for deniers/doubters to get off the fence.
I am more concerned with the edits to the definitions of global warming and climate change. People have been confusing these terms for years. The EPA put up clear definitions, which use time as a way to show the difference:
ReplyDeletehttp://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/
"Global warming refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average temperature near Earth's surface. It is caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...
and
"Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other effects, that occur over several decades or longer.
By saying these terms are the same, which they clearly are not, mass media continues to perpetuate the ongoing confusion the public currently experiences when trying to understand what climate change is, and how global warming, sea level rise, atmospheric deposition, and other events fit in. We do not have time for confusion. We must promote clear, concise language to explain this science, and the future, to the public.
Argh, it's too early for mixed emotions. On the other hand I love the fact that they made such a subtle change that essentially changes the way media represents something, but on the other hand I feel that the definition of skeptic is used narrow mindedly and that way now represents a subset of skeptics.
ReplyDeleteBeing a bit of a skeptic myself (not about climate change, but in general) I had to revise my view of skepticism. Reading through the SEP article on skepticism, I can see a lot of features that the denialists are sharing, but turns out that they still miss one part of skepticism, willingness to accept facts.
Generally skeptics have doubts and by reviewing those doubts they come to conclusions. Climate change denialists are unwilling to review the doubts, which indeed makes them denialists and not skeptics.
Thus, I had to review my view on skepticism as well as learn new stuff.. As I said, too early for mixed emotions.
The SEP article is here btw: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
Global warming is fact
ReplyDeleteCant you see the world we live. There is no time to doubt . If not educated, we are all the victim, by our own activities. If certain measures is not taken by each and every individual. Am afraid the catastrophic would be worse than our expectation.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle how am I suppose to know how to comment on the terminology without you considering it a rebuttal?
ReplyDeleteSami Haahtinen
ReplyDeletePlease do a real fact check about CO2.
#CO2 rise by #Geoengineering #SRM! Deconstructing #Geoengineering #Mafia by simple facts!
http://geoarchitektur.blogspot.de/2015/12/co2-rise-by-geoengineering-srm.html
Just try to question the claims about climatechange & globalwarming by them replacing everywhere with "#Geoengineering by Tropospheric Solar Radiation & Water Management" (TSR&WM).
You will sensefully understand the extreme weather with floods, droughts, super lightings, ball size hale, lack of sunlight, slight rise of CO2 level because of less photosynthesis etc.
zara jims The measure to be taken is learning and understanding Geoengineering by TSR&WM and stopping it. The CO2 level is an indicator of less direct sunlight & less photosynthesis & dying trees & weaker environment!
It is time to look behind the curtain.
James Salsman that would be a matter of intellect.
ReplyDeleteJames Salsman If you can't honestly differentiate between a sincere comment on nomenclature and an unprovoked, off-topic jab at another person, I don't know what to tell you other than you are in desperate need of constructive socialization. If you want to use the disappearance of your comment as a binary indicator of its appropriateness, you are more than welcome, but realize that my patience is finite.
ReplyDeleteCraig Froehle: How come you haven't moderated Enkidu Gilgamesh's clearly deranged paranoia of elementary physics?
ReplyDelete(This, I would suppose, is more of a #debuttal than #rebuttal .)
Andres Soolo Do You mean censoring by "moderated". Speak with me in clear words. I don't like rhetorical manipulation!
ReplyDeleteExplain Your elementary physics, which are different from mine. I am able and ready to discuss that!
Andres Soolo Sorry. On it.
ReplyDeleteEnkidu Gilgamesh: Well, not necessarily. A brief explanation of "See! That's how crazy the climate denialists are!" might work as well as an approach to moderation. Perhaps with a brief link to a popular science article explaining the silliness of the HAARP mythology tacked on for good measure.
ReplyDeleteMan, what a pessimist yuo are, of course there are alle kinds of terrifying implications for them who will be affected by it, but there are also some positive sides On globale warming. This winter, for example i have already saved a lot of money on our heating costs, up to now there are no traffic accidents by wintry conditions and i also know a lot of older peopel who are happy with the ice and snow free streets. Perhaps in the future the northern shipping passage will be ice-free for a major part of the year, allowing maybe transportation costs to become much cheaper. In the northern hemisphere thousands of square miles can become available for cultivation. Even in my backyard a lot of plants have the opportunity to flourisch and perhaps set seed. Have you ever thought that as the sea level rises many industrial zones, that people like you consider as the cause of all the misery you see, will perhaps be destroyed. Als look at the bright side of live!
ReplyDeleteAnyway my best wishes for 2016.
How funny
ReplyDeleteMeh, it's not as much as an improvement as it could be, but better than nothing.
ReplyDeleteI cannot talk to you
ReplyDeleteAshanti Gibson because our esteemed host forbids rebuttal?
ReplyDelete