Do you agree with this definition of a global warming %26#039;denier%26#039;? Most people object to being called %26#039;deniers%26#039;. They would prefer to be called %26#039;skeptics%26#039;, but oftentimes that is an inaccuate label.

Note that %26#039;denier%26#039; has absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust. A %26#039;denier%26#039; is simply a person who denies reality.

How about this definition - a %26#039;denier%26#039; is a person who continually rejects established scientific data and instead continually makes false and unsubstantiated claims (for example %26#039;no warming since 1998%26#039; when the data clearly proves otherwise).

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pr...

Can we agree on this definition? That way, if the %26#039;skeptics%26#039; can provide solid scientific links (and I%26#039;m not talking about right-wing blogs, junkscience.com, or surfacestations.org, I%26#039;m talking scientific data), then they%26#039;re don%26#039;t qualify as %26#039;deniers%26#039;. Sound fair?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/commi...
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/...
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Hey-Nobe...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ab...
http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/P...

I suggest wathing following documentary aswell:

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/great_g...

yea i guess i%26#039;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%26#039;t swallow his bull then your just in denial.

I am not a denier,but know that you boys are in denial of reality,even though you spate that others were in denial.

The earth does not work as your modelers and theorists assume,did you ever invest in a theory? Or would you? Would your wife or mother approve of you investing all of the familys fortunes in a theoretical investment? Not likely.

But that is what has happened.,and you would deny that statement,does that put you in denial,I think so.

Global warming is the resultant of energetic flows coming into our sector and will abate,you do not even speak to the 11 year solar cycle that the astro idiots even get. We are in that period now,and have been experiencing a 1050 periodicity event for many years now that has the magma hotter than other non energetic events periods.

I suspect you probably donated to the (I think the Finnish Idiots) that bought a mile long solar blanket to stop their glacier from melting.

You actually believe folks that masquerade as scientists and even went to or are a provider of the play that has all of you boys in a special box that people much smarter than you put you in,and you actually probably like it,we did make it comfy for ya.

But your kind of folks also believe that that new super collider is going to prove the %26quot;Big Bang%26quot; theory and I might just laugh and laugh if it and your goofy Global Warming and colliding didnt deplete economies.

And would you Jet Set if invited to a Global Warming meeting that %26quot;They%26quot; hold in just the right seasonal vacation spots? And you still think you have not been hustled.

I suggest you ask for your money back,Master Scientist. The reference is myself,Earth Service Science department Tasker.We are the folks that take care of things you know nothing about. And dont even have the oomph or curiousity to discover our mission .But we are Earth Scientists,which includes the Grid.

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: %26quot;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%26quot; 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.