Comment 31 by NealOKelly :

I’m with Rolan on this one: the term “denier” is unhelpful and more than a little offensive. AGW is not a black and white issue. Most sceptics do not dispute:

a) That we are currently experience a period of warming b) That the physics predicts that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in warming c) That the activities of man have resulted in increases in atmospheric CO2

What most sceptics question is whether or not man-made CO2 emissions are the principle agent for warning. That’s doesn’t strike me as being a particularly irrational question, especially given the complexity of the systems we are trying to model.

Others question the rationale of the economic case if large-scale CO2 reductions, arguing the economic harm of CO2 reductions would actually be worse that the economic harm of climate change. [Note, this particular brand of denial doesn’t necessarily even involve questioning the scientific consensus, just the economics.]

If you ask me, it’s not the “deniers” that are acting irrationally here.

Neal (No relevant qualifications)

Calling them deniers is quite appropriate, since they are in fact denying a mountain of evidence as well as the facts of the situation. It is not an insult to call a spade a spade.

It is actually a rather poor question indeed...because in the end, the answer has no bearing on the immediate future. Knowing a,b,&c it is quite clear that we need to do something about c, whether it is the most prominent cause or not. (And all current data shows it is)

The economic impact will be worse than the climate change....what a joke. Green technology has a huge opportunity to stimulate the economy, and save billions down the road. And even if it didnt, what good is paper when the earth is inhabitable?

Ohh and in the US, This year’s record-breaking tornadoes, floods, droughts and wildfires will cost the country tens of billions of dollars in economic losses...current conservative estimates are at over 30 billion.