Yes, but you won't listen. You are a denier. Mike Mann is a skeptic. Rio is a denier. Phil Jones is a skeptic. Kano is a denier. Jim Hansen is a skeptic. James is a denier. The difference is in many ways very simple. Deniers either do not understand science or lie about it. Skeptics are what scientists are supposed to be, what they are trained to be. Skeptics look at facts and results with a jaundiced eye, and test the facts and results. Deniers refuse to look at facts and results they don't like, generally for political reasons. To deny is to claim something isn't so. To be skeptical is to look for alternate explanations of facts and results, to verify the facts and results are what they are claimed to be, and to be always aware that one can be wrong. Deniers are certain they are right. Scientists are never that certain.
I think I can answer on behalf of the alarmists.
A skeptic is someone who makes a good point that is consistent with the warmist standpoint. For instance, if the discussion is focussing on the last 17 years and you point out that we have been warming for at least a couple of hundred years then you are a skeptic.
A denier is someone who makes a good point that is not consistent with the warmist standpoint. For instance, if the discussion is focussing on the last 200 years and you point out that we have been cooling for at least 10,000 years then you are a denier.
EDIT @Gary K: "... overwhelming scientific consensus - which we have, at 97%. " Please let me know which, if any, of the 97% consensus papers has any credibility and why you think that.
A denier will not "believe" anything that does not agree with their pre-conceived conclusion. The scientific evidence is irrelevant, it is their belief that matters.
A skeptic will investigate different options, question the science, seek to find other evidence BUT is open to evidence irrelevant of their own opinions.
The term "skeptic" has been hijacked by climate change deniers. So in the climate change arena, they mean the same thing.
A true skeptic would remain skeptical of the claim, pending the provision of compelling scientific evidence and/or overwhelming scientific consensus - which we have, at 97%.
-------
EDIT: @graphicconception - it's called peer review.
A skeptic is someone who needs evidence to believe a new idea. A denier rejects the new idea even when he/she is presented with the evidence.
Do you know what a skeptic is?
A skeptic is someone who thinks the damage from global warming will be maybe just very bad but not very very bad. A denier is someone who thinks the damage from global warming will be maybe just bad or perhaps even not bad and not very bad.
Alarmists can't even tell the difference between agenda driven 'propaganda science' and real objective science. They love to censor objective scientists the way they like to censor those who question their idealism. If not censor then run propaganda ads that scare the living crap out of little kids as they watch a government paid teacher murder a little student just for questioning a leftist theory on the climate.
That's what they do when their 'science' or ideology fails to convince and convert. Intimidate and terrorize. Tyrannical.
Good question, I would really like to know as well, seeing that everyone calls me a denier
http://washingtonexaminer.com/is-indepen...
Wiki has a good entry on "denialism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
Thanks for the joke beforehand. Alarmist promote themselves as skeptics, till another alarmist fringes on the food dish. Now the game changes, There's a long history of ALARMIST promoting and denying peer reviewed archives. If it suites the need, your in, if it disagrees your not. Science hasn't anything to do with it.
I know several alarmists claim that there is a difference between a climate skeptic and a climate denier. I'm curious as to what the distinction is. Can anyone explain it to me?
