What Is A "Climate Change Denier"? Are They Just Imaginary Beings That Climate Doomsday Alarmists Say Exist?

A recent Nature journal article was loaded with the provocative and non-scientific terms, including 'climate change denier' - it's terminology completely disconnected from reality and specifically used to incite hatred and revulsion

Read here. The terms climate change 'denier' and 'denial' are used frequently for the sole purpose of denigrating opponents. They are terms of hate that the feeble-minded employ with delight, including the once highly esteemed science journal Nature.

In reality, the vast majority of 'IPCC global warming' skeptics are not climate change deniers, which honest, objective scientists and reporters know. Factually speaking, there are very few climate change deniers, if any, who can be identified and named - basically, they really don't exist.

As did many others, CAGW skeptic Joanne Nova took umbrage with a recent Nature "science" article that was loaded with variations of the term 'climate change denier'. She wrote an excellent letter to the lead author of the article, challenging his ignorance and biases. Below is a brief list summarizing her letter's main points that most skeptics believe/accept, plus additions by 'C3':

1. That the earth has warmed in the last century
2. That humans produce CO2
3. That CO2 levels are rising
4. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming
5. That earth may experience a 1.2°C temperature increase from a doubling of CO2
6. That humans can cause climate change via other means than CO2
7. That natural/solar/cosmic forces are responsible for majority of warming since the end of the Little Ice Age
   
8. That modern warming is not "accelerating"
9. That modern warming is not "unprecedented"
10. That modern warming is not "unequivocal"
11. That past IPCC global climate model predictions have been spectacularly wrong
12. That climate model simulations are not empirical evidence
13. There is no empirical evidence supporting an temperature amplification from 1.2°C to 4°C
14. There is no empirical evidence of positive feedback from atmospheric water vapor
15. There is no empirical evidence for a human caused tropical atmosphere 'hot spot'
16. There is no empirical evidence for CO2-induced climate 'tipping points' (ie, runaway positive feedbacks)
    

• Finally, that the IPCC has zero climate observation datasets that support the last 4 points
• Finally, that the IPCC has zero studies based exclusively on empirical evidence (sans computer predictions) that support the last 4 points

So, what really is a 'climate change denier'?

Well it's not someone who believes the above, which represents the majority of skeptics (and 'lukewarmers') regarding the IPCC's human-caused catastrophic global warming "science". If there was actual empirical measurements and irrefutable studies (sans climate model simulations) supporting the IPCC's CAGW claims and predictions, then skeptics, and any of those in-the-bedroom-closet boogieman deniers, would likely not exist except in the conspiracy-addled brains of climate doomsday believers.

Comments

[C3 Editor]

Renewable Guy-

Have your hoot but at the end of the day you still have no empirical evidence to discredit Joanne's view. Her credentials are irrelevant as are Al Gore's and Bill McKibben's when it comes to assessing climate science facts.

Trashing the credentials of opposing parties is very simple and not one the alarmist's are going to win. Hmmm...is Andy Revkin a scientist? See how easy that is? There are plenty more to attack on that basis.

Next time you drop by, please refrain from the needless smearing...you are not convincing anyone with that tactic.

[Bruce of Newcastle]

Renewable Guy - Look up Jo's husband. You will find his qualifications exceed, lets say, 97% of climate scientists' qualifications. Indeed he is a climate modeller by profession, with six university degrees.

As I understand it Jo has a BSc hons 1 and a graduate certificate of science communication. So she is both a scientist and a journalist. If you've read the site and seen their presentations you will have seen they work as a team.

And I have a PhD in chemistry and 30 years in frontline science. Including 20 years of modelling experience, iterative, thermodynamic and statistical. I agree with the points listed, furthermore I would say that climate sensitivity expressed as 2XCO2 is empirically around the 0.5-0.7 K mark - which I might add is supported by the recent Gleckler et al 2012 paper on SST's. At these sensitivity values CO2 and GHG's cannot cause dangerous warming.

[Chris Fletcher]

Renewable Guy,

Please tell me where you can do a degree in "Climate Science".

Regards,

Chris (BSc (Hons), PhD)

[memoryvault]

Test

[Renewable Guy]

You know I just had to laugh at the list.

I looked up Joanne Nova's credentials on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova

Not even qualified in the climate science area. Just another PR hack.

I'm going to copy this list and take it a blog site I like to chat on. It'll be a hoot. You guys have made your own bed and now you have to lie in it. Enjoy.

[Icarus62]

The deniers have brought it on themselves.