AP will use "climate doubters" instead of "climate skeptics"

oh sure, and are you a betting person? :wink:

Bet is won if whatever scientific community remains at this time, whether human, machine, or extraterrestrial, acknowledges the “destruction” of Earth most likely resulted from the Large Hadron Collider or a product thereof (e.g. strangelet, micro black hole, etc).*

* Teleporting Earth to another location or alternate universe where it is still able to support life is specifically excluded.

1 Like

No particle physicist worth their salt actually believed it was likely the LHC would destroy the earth. After all, massively more energetic collisions happen on earth constantly from cosmic radiation. If the LHC could destroy the earth in the paltry few years it runs, then the earth should have been destroyed many billions of times over from a very fast proton colliding with the atmosphere.


My thinking is that we have both climate change deniers, and anthropogenic climate change skeptics.

The former are faux-conservative idiots who reflexively deny anything that seems “liberal” to their bigoted sensibilities, even when it means abandoning historically conservative values like stewardship and alms. People like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk who’d crucify Christ as a Marxist hippy.

The latter are people who’re smart and humble enough to recognize that they’re reliant on trained scientific specialists to analyze complex data correctly. And I sympathize; when something is so politically charged, it’s hard to place complete trust in any position, even scientific integrity, when you can’t personally verify it. I’ve been fortunate in that my scientific training enabled me to understand the complexities of climate at least well enough to trust and understand the limits of modern climatology. I’m now completely confident the Earth’s surface is warming, virtually positive it’s primarily an artifact of fossil fuel use, and consider it a very high likelihood the already mounting consequences of shorting out the Earth’s long-term carbon cycle will be the worst disaster in human history since Toba likely nearly made us extinct seventy millennia ago.

But before I researched it over the course of a year involving much reading on the topic (at first because I considered it important to be informed on and then because it fascinated me), I would have counted as an anthropogenic climate change skeptic. And I would never take a position, nor could I force myself to believe something on mere faith, simply because the Rush Limbaughs of the world deny it’s even possible on even less information. Unlike them, I don’t regard reactionary politics as a substitute for scientific investigation.

As such, I have sympathy for the integrity of skeptics, and no respect for the childish tantrums of deniers. Climate doubters seems both unnecessary and a way to blur the important distinction between skeptics and deniers. It’s bad journalism.

1 Like

How about “intentionally ignorant”?


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.