The problem I see with that threshold is its lack of utility. If something is so very far out there that virtually no one believes it, then it's irrelevant.
The belief that the Earth is flat is also pretty much irrelevant.
I'm pretty easy going in my tolerance for different perspectives and opinions and idea. I may not buy them, but I tolerate just about anything for which the holder can offer a semi-respectable argument and I can stretch my suspension of disbelief pretty far when folks are earnest and thoughtful in their support of them. Past that, forget it. I tend to use "flat-earth" for anything that exceeds plausibility, something without a coherent justification.
I wouldn't normally use that definition because I think "flat eathers" is only appropriately used for ideas that are so far out there that they are irrelevant. Even if I did use that definition I wouldn't call skeptics of anthropogenic global warming, "flat earthers", because some of them are earnest and thoughtful and can make semi-respectable arguments. Unconvincing arguments, perhaps arguments that wouldn't be called "fully respectable", but "semi-respectable" and "thoughtful" apply to some of them. ("Earnest isn't something I would care too much about, when defining the limit of "flat earthers". Believers that the earth is flat can be earnest, there where earnest supporters of Pol Pot and Jim Jones).
Note by skeptics I am referring to people who think anthropogenic global warming, is still an open question, not people who flatly deny it and talk of conspiracies to foist this ridiculous idea on the world.
So, while I wouldn't put the notion that humans are not affecting climate in the "staggeringly ignorant" category , I don't know of any plausible justification for it
Denying that anthropogenic global warming is a settled question, doesn't amount to denying that human activity affects the climate. 1 - It isn't a denial, its skepticism. 2 - It isn't skepticism of any effect on the climate, only of warming. 3 - It isn't even necessarily a denial of a warming effect. You could be an "anthropogenic global warming skeptic", while thinking the effect is there but insignificant. Arguably people may fall under that category if they think it is there but the temperature is and will be relatively stable because the earth would be cooling without it.
If someone flatly denies that there is any significant possibility that human activity has any effect on the climate than I would say that they fit your definition of "flat earthers", and it could even be argued that they fit mine or at least approach it. |
