re: #108 Locker

Personally I like to think they are reincarnated flat earthers.

To be fair, there are deniers, and there are sceptics ( and note that I’ve never accepted the term “deniers” previously on this issue.)

The Deniers: are essentially biased and ignorant, they dispute the science based upon false arguments, in the US, they are also partisan political affiliations in play. They are why I no longer enjoy taking the sceptic position, they have created new problems and taken the sceptic side into the gutter.

The sceptics: they accept that the current state of climate science is in favour of the AGW theory. They accept the measured global warming and the properties of CO2 as demonstrable in laboratory. They are sceptical as to the actual extent of the anthropogenic factor, how much of it is CO2 and how much other man made factors, and some of the ideas about feedback, and the accuracy of models going forward, but they have no problem with the underlying science. In some cases there are also concerns about the accuracy of some of the measurements.

In addition there are those who have observed the Global Warming Hoax, this is nothing to do with the underlying science, it is an observation that there has been slanted media coverage, and slanted political action by those with the Hoax agenda, it includes the advancement of ineffective “solutions” that are in fact not solutions but rather suit a different agenda, and a protest against a minority of scientists and politicians who have misused their position in favour of advocacy of this distorted agenda.

There is much more to the Hoax, and much more to the sceptic and denier category, but they all appear real and worthy of discussion. Lumping all of those not on the AGW bandwagon as deniers is unfair to the sceptics, and giving unearned credibility to the deniers is unfair to both the sceptics and those who accept the current science based consensus.