Do you agree with this definition of a global warming 'denier'?

Do you have a better term? I mean these guys sure aren't skeptical. Being skeptic means the one has an open mind, but the deniers, at least most of the ones that I've encountered, have completely thrown out years of scientific research and only believe that random opinion found in some random blog or opinion page, or are just regurgitating some misleading cherry picked bit of information that they heard some talking head say.

If these guys were "skeptical" then they would be just as skeptical of that random opinion and cherry picked data. They might start asking questions such as, "Well, what do the scientists say?" or "I wonder who is paying for that opinion?" or "CO2 gas really does absorb infrared radiation, right?"

A better term would probably be something like a "climate change action delayer". But this is just too bulky.

The case for anthropogenic global warming is more conclusive today, and the physical science basis for it is not that difficult to understand. The largest compilation of current research on climate change is found in the IPCC reports, and their latest one came out last year. Most of the deniers will dismiss the entire reports without even taking a cursory look.

Here is the best explanation that I've found on why the deniers continue to deny science:

<Quote>"The more I've listened to global warming deniers, the more I've realized that for most of them, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SCIENCE. These guys don't go five minutes without attacking Al Gore or comparing climate activists to socialists who want to destroy capitalism. Deniers are part of a political culture that frames the world in terms of left and right, so they've absorbed global warming into that broader paradigm of partisan politics."[1]<End quote>

No, since I believe people have the right to disagree with what the scientific community is trying to shove down their throats. A true denier is one that doesn't believe any change has happened at all and thinks that global climate change never happened and isn't happening now. The thing that you and others of your like have done is labeled everyone a denier that didn't believe as you believe.

Any right wing blog that provides links to scientific sources to back up their claims is as credible as realclimate blog you site. Yes real climate is a blog with an agenda. If they are seekers of truth they would not edit out comments that they do not like.

Satellite data shows 1998 as the warmest year on record. Saying that one temperature data set is more credible as another makes you the denier. You are denying scientific data.

Believers who keep misrepresenting their hypothesis also makes them deishones. From your link: "A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade" 0.1 per decade for ten decades makes one degree, way below what the models are indicating. The MET OFFICE temperature data for the last decade disproves and does not back your real hypothesis of catastrophic warming.

Like greenhuddler.com or whatever is scientific data? That sounds like a LEFT-wing blog to me... how is that any better than a right-wing blog. Also, pretty much anything found online is questionable...

So no, I don't really agree. Maybe an 'alarmist' isn't an 'alarmist' if *they* provide scientific evidence that global warming is going to kill us all.

I think that eventually we will have fMRI scanning technology which will be able to conclusively prove a specific brain signiture of a denialist. The part of the brain which confabulates and blocks higher order thinking will light up like wildfire. The next step will be a portable fMRI sort of like a pacemaker for those inflicted with denialism. Everytime these brain signitures come up the device will deliver a painful electric shock until the ability to think honestly and rationally is developed. I fear that several people on this forum may not survive to the point of being cured, sadly.

I'm not sure what exactly I am supposed to be in denial about . Maybe the fact that no greenhouse warming can be found in the lower troposphere where it should be ? Or , is it the fact that Co2 in the past has never been a major driver of temperature . Every temperature reconstruction rules out Co2 and a true consensus has been formed on this in the Scientific community . Perhaps you are the real denier here .

That is pretty much it and I think perfectly fair (though I have also been using that distinction between denialist and skeptic for quite a long time so of course I would agree).

Although I would prefer to apply the term term skeptic to those who look at the evidence and base their beliefs on the evidence, that would mean of course that there are plenty of skeptics here but...

yea i guess i'm a denier, if you call asking for more solid proof of a thing in stead of swallowing some line a politician is giving me.

You really have to hand it to Gore here. He gets everyone all rilled up on a subject and he claims both sides. The earth is heating up cause of man and due to it heating up it will get colder. so if you say hey its not as hot this year as last year, his little cronies go, see all that ice melted and its getting colder. then he takes away any discussion on it by saying the debate of global warming is done. And if you don't swallow his bull then your just in denial.

I rather be called a skeptic as well and i feel very hurt when someone calls me a denier. Skeptic Skeptic not denier, who do i deny?

Firstly people who do not suport AGW are not denying reality, AGW is an un-proven theory, hence it is those that put it forwards as hard science are the ones that deny reality

I am happy to be called a skeptic as I am not gullible and do not accept what I am told as true.

If you need hard evidence you obviously have done little research into the subject, find the information for yourself as do others! I will get you started with some interesting links:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/381/e...

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/warmingsca...

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Hey-Nobel-Prize-Wi...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292...

http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/gwhoax...

I suggest wathing following documentary aswell:

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_global_warm...