Assuming that you aren't looking for googled responses, off the top of my head here are the simplest definitions I can come up with; I list the definitive nature of the last four below and qualifiers to my answers as needed below that:

Definitions:

1. Global Warming: The gradual increase of global average temperatures over a long period of time.

2. Climate Change: Long Term Regional variations in weather patterns due to a variety of factors, influenced by changing temperatures.

3. Anthropogenic Global Warming: Climate Change influenced by mankind's activities

4. Abrupt climate changes influenced by mankind's activities that cannot be reversed or quickly adapted to, resulting in mass death or social chaos.

5. Denier/Denialist: A psychological state in which a person, usually as a result of fearing the potential consequences or outcome of any issue, rejects information or evidence relevant to that issue that tends to support the contrary and undesirable outcome.

6. Skeptic: An individual who questions or doubts findings or beliefs of others and offers reasonable evidence to the contrary.

7. Warmist: An individual who believes that the findings of climate science are correct and the average global temperature is increasing, being accelerated by human activities.

8. Alarmist: Someone who is hyper vigilant or overly alert to a potential threat and is actively warning others.

Nature, pejorative or neutral:

5. Denier/denialist: In context, pejorative. The neutral definitive term is denial while denier/denialist is contextual and collective, describing a group of people engaged in debate about climate change who deliberately attempt to mislead others by any number of tactics in a strategy designed to prevent effective action by proponents of AGW to combat it.

6. Skeptic: Neutral

7. Warmist: Neutral

8. Alarmist: Pejorative in this context, but not unlike the concept of Paul Revere of American Revolution lore raising the alarm about invasion.

Qualifiers: 'Long period of time' and 'long term' are relative but in excess of the 1-30 year periods often quoted as establishing longer term trends.

EDIT: "JC, I like your post, but I have to wonder about it. I have clearly stated a plan for reducing CO2 that I am fairly certain would be more effective than the current carbon tax plan at reducing CO2. But some might say that I overly discount the future modeling, which falls under your denier definition. By your definitions, I could be placed into the denier, the skeptic or the warmer category. So how do you determine the final placement?"

That's a good question and may point out a hole in my definitions that might only be resolved subjectively. Future models, however, are subject to variables that are applied and not all are clearly understood, so there is statistical probability that is certainly subject to debate. I don't personally think anyone could legitimately call you a denier on that point.

As to your further note about 'denier' being considered far more pejorative in this context, I would concur related to my comment about 'Paul Revere' in terms of ringing alarm bells for the common good vs. 'crying wolf.' In any case, 'alarmists' don't seem to care much about the labels applied so it's rather academic, with the main objections to labels coming from 'deniers' or 'denialists,' which, rightly or wrongly has been associated with that Armejebbidiah nut and the holocaust. Denial itself is a pretty common occurrence in humanity and might be considered a 'normal' psychological response to strife or issues with perceived negative consequences...followed by anger, then acceptance. So it is arguable whether denial is pejorative in and of itself, but it is clearly possible that some people are in a psychological state of denial about climate change or the evidence thus far about AGW. On the other hand, some denial can be related to a deliberate effort to advance a particular agenda, which is far more sinister. I could speculate whom among the 'deniers' (no insult intended) here who might be having a psychological reaction and who are pursuing an agenda, but there wouldn't be any validity to my opinion and it wouldn't advance the conversation. Using the terms 'Denier and denialist' et al in the climate change argument may give the user some satisfaction, but it doesn't advance argument any further toward dialogue even if it would be as neutral as I am implying. So I think somebody needs to come up with a better term that is more neutral, like 'warmers.'

Like more labels will help. Haw. Not likely...

1. Global warming - an increase in global average temperature

2. Climate change - self explanatory - these words have no meaning other than a change in the climate. It is not some secret code that someone like Sagebrush has to ask the IPCC

3. Anthropogenic global warming - an increase in global average temperature caused by humans

4. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming - a term invented by denialists. You have to ask them.

5. Denier/denialist - someone who rejects evidence which is contrary to what they want to believe

6. Skeptic - someone who requires evidence before they believe something new

7. Warmist - what denialists call realists

8. Alarmist - someone who thinks that acceptance of the science of AGW is a threat to our freedoms

1. Global warming - Increase of the global average surface temperature.

2. Climate change - A truism. Climate is "long-term weather" and nothing in real life is statistically stationary; so it changes.

3. Anthropogenic global warming - Increase of the global average surface temperature caused by human kind by increasing CO2 and also by other means (e.g. land use change)

4. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming - As 3. but the outcome will be disastrous in some way. Possibly hundreds of millions of lives affected.

5. Denier/denialist - what a Warmist calls people who disagree with him or her. The word has no other meaning.

6. Skeptic - an American Sceptic! It used to mean someone who was sceptical. Now it means someone who can be sceptical of anything except the global warming "consensus" or party line.

7. Warmist - Someone who, unthinkingly, puts forward the "consensus" view.

8. Alarmist - someone who is a warmist but with no scepticism whatsoever and who constantly declares that the climate sky is falling. "It's worse than we thought!" is their most used sentence. Quite how it can be worse than we thought when it is settled is another contradiction.

I have asked for the definition of Climate Change many times. According to the IPCC, "Climate Change is a change in the climate." Ha! Ha!

You are the ones that are scaring everyone about Climate Change. Don't you think you should be the one to define it?

You forgot: 9. Greenie

Gary F:Where are all these statistical tests? Where can I grab examine it and say OK that number is 3. That either supports CC or it doesn't.

And you have the audacity to call me stupid. Every scientist that is worth even a penny knows that you test it. Didn't you learn that in High School?

Gary F, "Oh, I just go around and grab some figures and if they FEEL like a change in the climate that is good enough for me."

Sagebrush –

>>I have asked for the definition of Climate Change many times. According to the IPCC, "Climate Change is a change in the climate." Ha! Ha! <<

“Climate change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.”

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/s...

You are either incredibly stupid or a stupid liar – I’ll leave it up to you to tell us which.

=====

Sagebrush --

>>Gary F:Where are all these statistical tests? Where can I grab examine it and say OK that number is 3. That either supports CC or it doesn't. <<

Here is a simple little test to get an estimate of the probability that the last 17 years of temperature data would all be above the mean: Multiply 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5…17 times. The number is a lot smaller than 3 (whatever you think that might mean) – and that number overestimates the true probability.

>>Every scientist that is worth even a penny knows that you test it. Didn't you learn that in High School? <<.

That’s funny coming from someone who cannot even name a “test” he is referring to and cannot explain what statistical significance means – stupid.

======

Raisin Cain --

WTF are you talking about? What test(s) do think are relevant here - and why? I think that you don't know shlt about statistics and are just throwing around words pretending to be an adult.

Answer this Denier claim: There has been no significant warming for the last 17 years. Other that mindlessly repeating something you do not understand - What the Hell does that statement mean? More to the point: How does "not statistically significant" have anything to do with (1) whether or not there has been warming; (2) the (un)importance or (in)significance of temperatures over the last 17 years; and (3) what does the statement have to the "importance" or "significance" of anything.

1. Global warming -

A raise in the average temperature of the earth with no cause specified.

2. Climate change

What is does mean - any change to the climate

What warmers intend by it - Any change in the climate that can be directly or indirectly associated with AGW.

3. Anthropogenic global warming

A raise in the average temperature of the earth with humans as the direct cause. There is some gray area here. If you think man is the cause of most of the warming, then does this referecne the warming or the warming that man caused. I go with the latter.



4. Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming

AGW leading to far worse negative consequences, than positive, especially in terms of human life.

Generally, I would say that one would need to show a causal relationship to millions of deaths.

5. Denier/denialist (pejorative)

Someone who denies basic scientific principles with respect to AGW, like CO2 being a GHG or CO2 causing some warming. Generally I place global coolers (not the ones that beleive in the day after tomorrow scenarios, thus would hit the alarmists) and people who would suggest 0-0.5 degrees of warming by 2100.

6. Skeptic (not pejorative)

Someone who agrees with the basic science of AGW, but is highly skeptical of claim of exponential warming and primarily points out errors in methodology or faulty assumptions. In terms of increases in temp by 2100, This would be the group that beleives 0.5 - 1.5 degrees of warming.

7. Warmist (not pejorative)

Someone who basically agree with the assessments of the IPCC. Generally 1.5-4.5 degrees of warming by 2100.

8. Alarmist (pejorative)

Someone who makes consistent claims that are above the IPCC report, or ignore basic scientific principles like CO2 fertilization. Non-specific claims of disaster combined with insults usually warrant this categorization as well.

Gary F,

Good definition. Since you have provided this definition, everytime you claim "climate change" yet have no statistical test, you are lying, or stupid, or a stupid liar??? Personally, I would not accept anything as "climate change" using your definition that did not also account for multiplicity.

Edit:

Please note that for the discussion in the Global Warming section I would consider something to be climate change if it could be shown as a statistically significant change to the climate accounting for multiplicity, that is directly associated with an increase in the global temperature.

I do not buy Gary's definition. We have been specifically talking about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. His definition is a setup for entirely too many strawmen arguments on both sides. If the warmers are not willing to concede this point, then by their definition, I am a firm believer in climate change and any accusation of me being a "denier" would be a lie by their own definition.

JC,

I like your post, but I have to wonder about it. I have clearly stated a plan for reducing CO2 that I am fairly certain would be more effective than the current carbon tax plan at reducing CO2. But some might say that I overly discount the future modeling, which falls under your denier definition. By your definitions, I could be placed into the denier, the skeptic or the warmer category. So how do you determine the final placement?

Edit:

One note. I consider denier to be a far more pejorative term than alarmist. If you are declaring that the AGW is extremely alarming especially to the point of human extinction, etc., then alarmist is more descriptive than pejorative. Denier, however, tends to imply a denial of well-established scientific principles, which is rarely the case. In fact, I would state that conspiracy theorist more aptly applies to the people you would call deniers.

"get on the same page regarding the definition of terms, so at least we're not completely talking past each other."