The third in Joseph Romm's Media Enable Denier Spin series has been posted, and as with previous editions, provides some good food for thought. In this one he feels it is necessary to define a new label for those who for whatever reason seek to prevent or delay the adoption of policies to begin reducing human GHG emissions. His take is that Skeptic is too polite a term and isn't accurate for most, since most aren't skeptical of the science, but rather simply refuse to consider of accept the theory and its backing evidence, in whole or part. Further, he thinks that Denier isn't correct, because in many cases, there isn't denial of the science, but rather ideological fervor to avoid taking action.
His answer is to use the term "delayer" and more specifically "delayer-1000" in an attempt to make the term harsher. The 1000 indicates the likelihood that CO2 concentrations will reach 1000 ppm within a century if we take no action to curb human caused emissions. I don't think that delayer carries that much weight. Obstructer or Procrastinator seem to me to be better terms if trying to be technically accurate, though Denier doesn't seem to me to be all that inaccurate. At least among the people that I've met, they are denying the science. That denial has occurred at either two points: scientists aren't publishing a consistent view of the world and scientific understanding of climate change doesn't exist and is based on weak data correlations. (The church of the flying spaghetti monster was mentioned as illustration)
My favorite exchange in the very active comments thread:
His answer is to use the term "delayer" and more specifically "delayer-1000" in an attempt to make the term harsher. The 1000 indicates the likelihood that CO2 concentrations will reach 1000 ppm within a century if we take no action to curb human caused emissions. I don't think that delayer carries that much weight. Obstructer or Procrastinator seem to me to be better terms if trying to be technically accurate, though Denier doesn't seem to me to be all that inaccurate. At least among the people that I've met, they are denying the science. That denial has occurred at either two points: scientists aren't publishing a consistent view of the world and scientific understanding of climate change doesn't exist and is based on weak data correlations. (The church of the flying spaghetti monster was mentioned as illustration)
My favorite exchange in the very active comments thread:
Name Calling
I suggest your time would be better spent thinking up a new description for yourself that you will need when the earth starts cooling.
by StillSkeptical at 6:55 PM on 11 Mar 2008
New Description
Immortal?
by Hal 9000 at 7:06 PM on 11 Mar 2008
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment