There are 4 categories for warmers and only 3 for skeptics. I think you need another one in between mild skeptic and uber skeptic.

I myself would probably be labelled a 3 though I don;t really see a difference between 3 and 4.

I would rate 4 on this scale. I realize Co2 has warming effects and needs to be adressed and studied more in the scientific world but we have 50-100 years for a tipping point to were it will be a serious issue if we do not reduce our fossil fuels. We should be trying to reduce our effects by creating long term solutions. If a solution has a 10-15 year lifespan we should scrap it and make sure the long term 100 year plus solutions are put in place.

Increase in temperature between 2.5 and 5 degrees Celsius. I think economically it is better to deal with CO2 now rather then when it causes serious problems. Just like preventative maintenance on my home and car is cheaper then waiting until they break.

-1

We have already passed the tipping point. It is already to late to avoid catastrophic warming and ocean acidification.

We should start now a crash program of geo-engineering to get carbon out of the atmosphere

I am a 5. maybe even a 6.

But my point is Earth is facing serious problems that need looking at right now and Co2 is not one of them,

Depletion of oil and gas

running out of potable water,

A very risky global financial situation.

Extreme reliance on electronic commmunications

7 billion population

Subjective scales are always ********. I seem to remember a few denialists losing their **** over Lewandowsky's use of subjective scales to highlight crackpot beliefs among denialists. But to make them slightly less unreasonable, they are verified by using the same scales to answer several questions rather than just one. This indicates self bias among the respondents, who may answer the non-confronting questions honestly but be dishonest about this where they are passionate.

Anyway, here is my rewording of your subjective scale to a design which is more in line with my subjective assessment of the acceptance of the science.

1: alarmist.

2: sub-alarmist

3: realist

4: sceptic

5: denialist

6: ignoramus

7: crackpot

I am 3-4. Note that your description for 5 is what pushes it into the denialist realm, since you chose to use the word "probably" regarding the influence of feedbacks.

Well the best estimate is 3.0C so I guess that puts me on the border of Warmer/Alarmist. I guess that's about right, though I would prefer the term "Realist"

I'd rate you as a Lukewarmer!

I think I'd be in between Lukewarmer and Mild Skeptic on your scale. We're headed towards a "green energy" world regardless so I don't mind expanding hydroelectric, nuclear or geothermal energy sources. I don't think were in any immediate danger though and I see no need in throwing billions in taxpayer dollars towards useless wind energy and solar projects, carbon capture, and idiotic cap and trade schemes. I don't believe in subsidizing oil companies either.

I think I would put you in the Mild Skeptic category. I think there are a few CAGW Zealots (BigGryph, HeyDook) on YA as well as a few Crackpot Deniers (sorry Billy. I hope you are still out there and haven't been silenced by the Rothchilds yet).

Science is never a matter of belief except to ignoramuses, liars, and school children. Most anti-science deniers here, but also some non-deniers here, are at least one of those three.

I would put myself as a 5.2 but I have a hard time arguing with a 6 since these ubers may have a valid point. There are still too many unknowns for me to be reasonably certain about the influence of our CO2 emissions.

I've come up with a scale that represents what I see as the range of beliefs on the climate change issue. Obviously, there are extremes at either end and something more balanced as you get near the centre.

Explanation of Climate Sensitivity (CS) Quotient:

4.5C - upper bound of IPCC estimate

3.0C - median of IPCC estimate

1.1C - CO2 warming with no feedbacks

0.0C - CO2 addition has no affect on temperatures (due to negative feedbacks)

1. CAGW Zealot - Catastrophe is around the corner, tipping points, extreme destruction...CO2 must be reduced to zero...NOW. (CS Quotient: >4.5)

2. Alarmist - CO2 is a disaster waiting to happen which requires a major solution very soon if not now. (CS Quotient: 3.0-4.5)

3. Warmer - CO2 is a major problem in which mitigation is definitely required. (CS Quotient: 2.5-3.0)

4. Lukewarmer - CO2 is certainly a problem which needs some rectification or policy response combination of mitigation and adaptation. (CS Quotient: 1.5-2.5)

5. Mild skeptic - CO2 has a warming effect. Warming could be a problem but not really much to worry about right now...at least not yet. Feedbacks probably are small or cancel out. (CS Quotient: 1.1)

6. Uber skeptic - CO2 has little influence on climate. Increases lead to negative feedbacks. (CS Quotient: <1.1)

7. Crackpot denier - It's all a hoax/conspiracy. CO2 is irrelevant to climate. (CS Quotient: 0.0)

_____________________________________________________________

As usual, the first part is go ahead and rate yourself. Then feel free to trash other peoples' self-ratings. Do you ever find yourself misrepresented on such a scale?

What do you think of this scale? By the way, I won't rate myself so you go ahead and do the for me.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thanks for the laugh, Ottawa! Nothing like a really biased "objective" rating to show where you are coming from! The most likely range for CS, is 3.0-3.5, which you label as alarmist and 2nd highest on your rating. You also ignore the ultimate results of feedbacks in your rating scheme, which indicate ultimate temperature rises, after everything, of up to 6C to 10C. Sorry, but *anyone* who puts climate sensitivity as low as 1C to 1.5C is simply ignoring the preponderance of evidence that says the minimum CS is 2C or more. Try this scale:

6C to 10C rise - alarmist

2.5C to 4.5C - realist

1C to 2C - skeptic

below 1C - head in sand denier.

For purposes of comparison, I expect the ultimate temp to settle between 3C and 10C warmer, when all the feedbacks have worked themselves out, unless we intervene to change it. And I expect, if we don't collapse our civilization, that we will do something about this.

Do we really need is scale to do this? Nature will follow the physical laws no matter what you believe.

Honestly you keep posting useless questions Opinions, interpretation and speculations about what ifs really have no bearing on the topic. Why not stop posting all these distractions and actually try to find some real climate science to support your beliefs Until you can do this, all your questions are simply extraneous BS and a waste of everyone's time

I'm a 3.