Reply to comment

I am a skeptic, but I am persuaded by what I have seen to accept the IPCC consensus, which states that global warming is real and that it is, to a high degree of likelihood, caused primarily by human activity.

That consensus has plenty of "real science" behind it, and it has determined that "warming is real and not a myth perpertrated by those in need of grant money." The big money interests in oil and coal have reason to wish it were not so, whereas scientists can get grant money to study the climate regardless of where their conclusions lead.

When I use the term denialist, I am not speaking about other skeptics who ask for more evidence before accepting the consensus. I am speaking of the people who seize on any argument they can to dispute the IPCC consensus and who claim there is a vast conspiracy among grant-seeking scientists.

I am speaking of people like Senator Imhofe, who continues to call the idea of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a hoax. If that describes you, and your language suggests it does, then I make no apology for calling you a denialist, not a skeptic. If that offends you, then pehaps you are too easily offended.

Fred Bortz
Author of science and technology books for young readers and
Science book reviewer