I believe that the earth is warming - temporarily - but that it is not anthropogenic and it is cyclical. The Southern Hemisphere has been cooling (look at their winter last year). Areas of the northern arctic are warming temporarily, yes. However the sun is entering a cooling phase which will more than override the miniscule effect humans have on the global temperature. There are also too many data inconsistencies (heat island effect near reporting stations, NASA data error from a couple months ago, etc.) The Northern Hemisphere will see its share of cooling when the cycle comes, and suddenly you won't hear as much about global warming.

Reply: So which group do you fall into Kevin?

The Skeptic

I do not like any of those choices.
It implies that unless you are AGW, there is actually something to be skeptical of, or something to deny, or something to be apathetic about.

It's all based on what climate models predict.

I do not believe that any human on the face of this planet can design a climate model.

Thanks to this blog, I'm an AGW who is becoming more skeptical, or I like to think, nuanced.

I now think that human carbon emissions are but one contributor to warming. There is a LOT we are still learning about how the atmosphere, oceans and solar activity also impact the climate.

It's quite possible that human factors could be pushing temperatures up while solar or cyclical ocean temps may be simultaneously trending it downward.

Just because human factors may play a smaller role in the climate doesn't get us off the hook for making changes in our behaviors or carbon use policies, however. Hybrid cars, solar panels and cloth bags should be seen as simple tech advances, no different than the PC or the TV. Future development needs to exemplify values of effiency and low waste, to address the number of people on the planet and the quality of life we want our descendants to enjoy.

I like his definitions.

Skeptic

Many reasons why, some enumerated by Kevin.

The skeptic.

I'm a skeptic -- but I fear that Paul's definitions do a poor job of dividing the population. Let's consider the group of commentators here. None of them will accept the label 'denier' because Paul's definition specifies that a denier refuses to listen to any arguments -- who's going to cop to that accusation? He's not as extreme with the definition of AGW proponent, but I still doubt that anybody would cop to that definition, either. Which means that everybody here ends up being a skeptic. If we're all the same, why are we in so much disagreement?

I think that Paul would have done better to have broken the "skeptic" group into three sub-groups: open-minded denier, fence-sitter, and open-minded asserter. Then we would have seen some serious divisions appear. Indeed, I think his existing definitions of denier and proponent are so extreme that nobody will fall into those groups -- meaning those definitions are useless.

I have been giving the AGW position the Scot's verdict ( Not Proven ) for some time. I believe that further research is needed, but in order to do good research it helps, if you are at least open to the the possibility that your position is wrong.
However while further climate research is being conducted it would be a good idea to also encourage alternate ( non-fossil fuel ) research and implementation. If AGW turns out to be a false alarm or only a minor part of any real global warming that is occurring, we will still have an array of options ( wind, solar , hydro power, nuclear, geothermal ). This will be important anyway as prices for fossil fuels rise due to demand and/or political instability in producing regions. What I really object to, are government mandates that waste capital and time due to someone's panic over unproven ideas.

Thanks for your interesting blog

I'd like to say apathetic denier just to get some people whipped up but I won't.

Put me down for skeptic.

Skeptic-I think the jury is still out on Human Induced Global Warming

Global Leaders on this topic have forced me to become a skeptic by changing their facts when they make a public statement. I thought science was supposed to produce consistant facts?

Certainly there has been warming in the northern hemisphere! Why that has occured will not be "known" until many other options are crossed off in time.

I wonder what would happen some eight years from now if we realized we were entering a small ice age?

This old earth has been around longer than any computer model and I still believe the pendulum can swing both ways.

was a committed believer, then a skeptic and now nearly becoming a "denier". Put me down as a proud skeptic. I hope sites like climate audit will be reassessed for the Nobel prize once its retracted from Gore and the IPCC in the next few years LOL

I am a proponent of disastrous anthropogenic warming however, regretably, I will not live long enough to see it.

I'm a skeptic,since the mainstream refuses to acknowledge
the NATURAL forces at work here.One can't deny the warming trend,but I'm just looking for some honesty.

Skeptic.

Of course I'm a skeptic.

Out of Paul's 4 categories, skeptic is the only category that anyone on this entire blog will admit to being, especially since the other 3 categories have some negative connotations associated with them. Whose going to admit they are apathetic, ignorant of science (deniers), or irrational alarmists (AGWs)???

A very leading question for blog topic.

Interesting that once again we have a site with and obvious vested interest which finds no room for a group for people who are interested in the science of weather.

If you had one, that is the group I would fall per force into.

Chris

Paul narrowed everyone down to 4 types of people, of course the definitions aren't perfect. You would be hard pressed to narrow man kind in to 4 groups for anything. (without being ridiculous)

It would be easiest to make a hybrid group, cause I share qualities of at least 3 of them. But I would say I am a denier. Came here as a AGW proponant, went skeptic, and now I am a denier.

Since well over 90% of the legitimate scientific community and well over half of the population (despite well-funded efforts to obscure the issue, plus a natural distortion caused by news media PC efforts providing 50:50 coverage) agrees that global warming is happening and caused by humans, it is interesting that the categories are 3 to 1 in favor of denial or apathy.

Anyone who has been "better informed" by this blog has allowed themselves to be led astray by the bias and tricks department of the posse that uses this forum. If you are in this category, I would suggest you pursue the links provided and check their provenance. Common assertions they make are often without merit and only gain credence because of repetition and insistence, and they also use sarcasm and bullying to make their points. Another regular trick is to insist that all major news outlets are completely biased and the only unbiased sources are blogs put out by those in agreement with the denial community. Yet another common technique is to adopt and twist language; I have found things I said used this way. Anyone can call something a "clear air" or "clear skies" initiative, but it is shocking when the actual meaning is exactly the opposite and the action replaces something that actually addresses the problem.

A perfect example is the use of the Senator Inhofe's senate minority blog as a main source without mentioning it's minority status or funding of his campaign by industry (over $2 million). Interestingly, efforts to provide funding for research and growth of alternative fuels, etc. (which is a much larger dollar amount) was quoted as a personal benefit though it hardly compares to campaign funding and other lobbying activities.

Most of us who follow world weather news and are interested and worried in what is going on have quit this blog - I myself find I have a limited appetite for it. Also, since I am not funded to do this (which I suspect some of the most frequent and well-armed deniers in this blog are) I have a limited amount of time and resources to keep on following through on some of the outrageous assertions that are made by this community.

Brett, my apologies, I do not include you in this as you are only doing your job in difficult circumstances.

Closest to denier.

I am 100% true believer that many people are consciously or subconsciously using their professed belief in climate change as a cover for some other agenda, or that it is a symptom of a deep psychological problem.

Climate change is happening, due to man made and natural changes to the environment. I believe the role of natural forces is generally underestimated. I also believe the dangers are exaggerated and that the proposed "solutions" so far are ridiculous and dangerous.

We agree that neither ritual sacrifices, nor offerings to the Gods, nor rain dances were destined to change the climate - man wanted the power to change the climate.

It's nothing new - just taking new forms - sacrificing our lifestyle instead of our firstborn.

Call me a skeptic; the climate changes. I learned it in 3rd grade. The dinosaurs lived in tropical conditions far to the north and then glaciers covered the land. No human contribution...

All the 'facts' are confusing. What's true, what's not, who decides?

Is CO2 really a small percent of the GW gases with water vapor holding the number 1 spot by a long shot? And the human contribution to that CO2 piddling compared to the ocean and organic decay etc.?

When the arctic ice retreated in the MWP, was Manhattan under water?

What about temperature measurements - urban, rural, proxy, paintings of the frozen Thames, farming in Greenland, troposphere, surface, ocean, arg!

... sunspots, la nina, el nino, clouds, cosmic rays, volcanos, aerosols, albedo, computer models(ugh) ...

I like the definations. I am a skeptic, I don't doubt that global warming is occuring, but how much humans are contribution is the big question. The two articles posted on your blog, one on undersea volcanoes in Anartica and the Russian scientist's view we are headed to a cooling period show we don't know very much about how the world works.

CC

If you think the last piece of fluff was another depressing piece of evidence for AGW and you think that Hansen has no incentive to shade data his way - you are no skeptic.

I agree that the definitions leave little flexibilty around the defintions.

Reality has to fit in there somewhere!.( i.e. GW=Natural Climate Evolution)

By default I'm best described in the "Skeptic" Group.

Can someone take a minute and tell me if this is for real.

"Changes in the Sun�s Surface to Bring Next Climate Change"

http://windfarms.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/space-and-science-research-center.pdf

January 2, 2008
"Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida
announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar
physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun�s surface. The SSRC
has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next
climate change

to one of a long lasting cold era."

"This will have only one outcome
- a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period

of deep cold to the planet."

.

I am a skeptic. I do think man has some influence on climate change (microclimates for example) via the heat island effect, hateful asphalt, big cities, pollution (NOT CO2), etc., and just by existing. Man is part of nature. BUT there are other natural forces at work here and based on the history of man's hubris there really is a lot we still don't know. So I am more worried about the governments of the world and scientists caught up in their egos, doing something really stupid to "fix" the planet then some warming of the planet.

I also think there should be an additional category, such as "Those with an inability to discern what group they are in". The problem unfortunately is then those that belong in this group won't be able to assign themselves to this group. So others will have to do it. I think probably Chris Crawford would fit in that group since there is no way he is a skeptic, but is in reality an avid AGW Proponent based on all his comments. A true skeptic would not call someone else a denier.

Suz V., note that no climate scientists participate on this blog. It's dedicated to representing "both sides of the debate," which would be fair enough except that the scientific debate is over with regard to the large issues. As a result, what you see here is a considerable magnification of the denialist view. For a balanced view of the science, I suggest you go to RealClimate (a site run by climate scientists) and click on "Start Here" at the top of the page.

Put me down as skeptic, unless a fellow blogger exasperates me. Then I'm just plain angry. I suppose I then decend to denier attributes. Rather than a calm and clear mind I prove that "anger is the fume of a frustrated mind."

One nice thing I've noticed about this site is that even individuals who exasperate each other on a regular basis seem to get over wanting to strangle each other, and even to miss each other when one or the other doesn't post for a while.

Skeptic. Once I was apathetic but after looking closer on the issue I became astonished by the way how the science is misused from the AGW camp. They posses the media, but can't force everyone to think in the "right" way.

One day art ORNL in the spring of 1971, I sat down with Jerry Olson and several other scientists, and Jerry laid out for us the future. Jerry told us about the greenhouse effect and that the atmospheric CO2 level was rising. Jerry foresaw that world wide temperatures would rise and if it got warm enough the global ice caps would start to melt. Jerry was an ecologist, who was researching the world carbon cycle. At the time weathermen were pointing to dropping world wide temperatures and predicting a new ice age. Jerry got it right, the weathermen did not.

Paul Yeaget is a weatherman and full of it.

Mike Harwood, FYI the natural forces have been analyzed with great care. See the IPCC Fourth Assessment Review scientific report (Working Group I) linked here. I suggest you start with the FAQs, go on to the Summary for Policymakers, and if you need more detail the Technical Summary and finally the full report. I would be interested to know if you still think anything is missing after reviewing this material.