Global warming denialists are not skeptics: An open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
5 December 2014 (CSI) – Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term “skeptic.” The Nov 10, 2014, New York Times article “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline” referred to Sen. James Inhofe as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.” Two days later Scott Horsley of NPR’s Morning Edition called him “one of the leading climate change deniers in Congress.” These are not equivalent statements. As Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, we are concerned that the words “skeptic” and “denier” have been conflated by the popular media. Proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. It is foundational to the scientific method. Denial, on the other hand, is the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration. Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularized by Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Inhofe’s belief that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” is an extraordinary claim indeed. He has never been able to provide evidence for this vast alleged conspiracy. That alone should disqualify him from using the title “skeptic.” As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is “denial.” Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry. We are skeptics who have devoted much of our careers to practicing and promoting scientific skepticism. We ask that journalists use more care when reporting on those who reject climate science, and hold to the principles of truth in labeling. Please stop using the word “skeptic” to describe deniers. Mark Boslough, Physicist David Morrison, Director of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe, at the SETI Institute Bill Nye, CEO the Planetary Society Ann Druyan, Writer/producer; CEO, Cosmos Studios Ken Frazier, Editor, Skeptical Inquirer Barry Karr, Exec Director, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Amardeo Sarma, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Executive Council, Chairman GWUP (Germany) Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Prize in Chemistry Ronald A. Lindsay, President & CEO Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Center for Inquiry Kenneth R. Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University Christopher C. French, Dept of Psychology, Goldsmiths University of London Daniel C. Dennett, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy at CUNY-City College Douglas Hofstadter, Director, The Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University Stephen Barrett, Co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), and the webmaster of Quackwatch Scott O. Lilienfeld, Professor, Department of Psychology, Emory University Terence Hines, Dept of Psychology, Pace University James Randi, President James Randi Educational Foundation Seth Shostak, Senior Astronomer and Director of the Center for SETI Research Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Henri Broch, Physicist, Emeritus, University Nice Sophia Antipolis, France Eugenie C. Scott, Chair, Advisory Council, National Center for Science Education Edzard Ernst, Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, University of Exeter, UK Indre Viskontas, Cognitive Neuroscientist, Host Inquiring Minds Podcast David J. Helfand, Professor of Astronomy, Columbia University Mario Mendez-Acosta, Journalist, Science Writer, Mexico City Cornelis de Jager, Astrophysicist, Past President, International Council for Science Sanal Edamaruku, President, Rationalist International Loren Pankratz, Psychologist, Portland VA Medical Center, Retired Sandra Blakeslee, Science Writer Benjamin Radford, Deputy Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine David Thomas, Physicist and Mathematician Stuart D. Jordan, NASA Astrophysicist, Emeritus David H. Gorski, Cancer Surgeon, Wayne State University School of Medicine Anthony R. Pratkanis, Professor of Psychology, UC @Santa Cruz Jan Willem Nienhuys, Mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands Susan Blackmore, Psychologist, Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth Ken Feder, Anthropology, Central Connecticut State University Jill Tarter, Bernard M. Oliver Chair, SETI Institute Richard Saunders, JREF Million Dollar Challenge Committee, Producer – The Skeptic Zone Podcast Jay Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy, Williams College Lawrence M. Krauss, Director, The ASU Origins Project, Arizona State University Barbara Forrest, Philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University Kimball Atwood, Physician, Newton, MA James Alcock, Psychologist, Glendon College, York University, Toronto, Canada Massimo Polidoro, Science writer, author, Executive Director CICAP, Italy E.C. Krupp, Director, Griffith Observatory
The 1990 book "Dead Heat: The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect," by Michael Oppenheimer and Robert H.Boyle states the following:
"By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.
"By 1996 the Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.
Anonymous: The repeated use of the phrase "would be" indicates the writers based these statements on specific conditions. You have conveniently not mentioned those conditions.