Is it worthwhile categorizing climate naysayers?

It depends on if your goal is to engage with people whom you wish to influence or further alienate them. As we often see, when people are labeled they often award themselves victim status and can make an abrupt change from addressing the issue at hand to one of political correctness-even, at times, while criticizing the sensitivities of others who do the same. Ask yourself who, in the climate change argument is claiming victim status, is most aggressive, and demands political correctness. That is what it has become, an argument rather than a legitimate debate or a dialogue. Contrary to recent remarks, this is what trivializes the issue even as it gives center stage to the extremists. That is in evidence in many social issues and shot through our entire political system...and can even lead to violence.

Really, I have noticed one category with you alarmists. People who have no data to support their claims, so instead resort to insults.

You disagree?

Alright, let's go over the data again: You say that AGW is going to be catastrophic based upon there four things.

1.) Extreme weather - At first this appears correct given the news media covers extreme weather every chance they can get. BUT THE SCIENCE..... There has been no statistically significant increase in hurricanes, droughts, tornadoes or blizzards.

2.) Crop decimation - The crop production has been increasing faster than population growth both for the US and the world. This means you have no evidence of global crop destruction. You can use crap like the California drought, but the global droughts has also not increased, so that is also false. You are left with talking about locations that have problems, but this has ALWAYS occurred. Remember the Ethiopian drought of 1984?

3.) Ocean acidification destroying coral - Turns out that coral have been around since the Earth's CO2 conc. was 4000 ppm. Studies show they are not terribly sensitive and the effect on other sea life is a mixed bag, some do better some do worse

4.) Sea level rise - it is currently only 1.7 - 3.2 mm/year. That is half an inch to an inch every 8 years. Hardly a catastrophe.

The FACT is that I support moving off of fossil fuels, but NOT your idiotic regressive tax "solutions". Your plans are so stupid that the only way you get them passed is by scare-mongering and pretending AGW is some climate apocalypse, when NONE of the data shows it is.

I doubt that your arrogant "scientific" approach can ever get you an answer that agrees with your own.

You say "YES". We say "NO".

Governments have spent over a trillion dollars trying to sell "Global Warming" and you bought their goods. (You say "YES".)

"Naysayers" have spent less than 1% of that amount (probably more like 0.5%) and we continue to say "NO".

There's plenty of reasons not to buy into BIG GOVERNMENT and politically motivated science.

Of course you are going to categorize us. You have a biased opinion based on what you think is correct.

CO2 is NOT a driver of our climate.

Environmentalism is NOT a driver of our science program.

There's no such thing as "scientific correctness" or "scientific consensus".

An overall 0.01% change in our atmosphere in over 350 years of humans using fossil fuels in order to better our communication skills and our travelling ability does help the human condition and natural "evolution".

An overall 0.01% change in our atmosphere in over 350 years of humans using fossil fuels does create a NATURAL jealousy against those who benefit the most by excavating fossil fuels and enhancing the human ability to better communication skills and travelling ability.

Bottom line :

You give too much credit to "environmental correctness" seekers (aka extreme environmentalism).

Which category do you fall into?

There are three distinct groups of Green Movement supporters:

1. The Dupes. These are the child-like idealists - the true believers - the tree huggers. These are people who are easily manipulated by eco-emotion and have a simplistic and usually fantasy-driven understanding of science and ecosystems. Because of their group-think beliefs they have usually been steeped in leftist philosophy, but these people are not driven by primarily by politics.

2. The Marxists. These people are driven only by leftist politics and philosophy. The ends justify the means. These people are constantly re-branding themselves as their abysmal record of economic failures and human rights atrocities are exposed to the light of day. Red conveniently morphs into green. This group has seized the theory of AGW as their perfect cover-cause and justification for fulfillment of Marx' Manifesto. They really don't care at all about any eco-cause, including climate change; all of this is simply a tool to dupe the public into accepting their political ends as a solution for their contrived crises.

The Opportunists. These people see an opportunity for personal profit and advancement. Led by Al Gore, this group understands the Marxist design, but is willing to accept this in return for profits and personal advancement. This group has established a climate change spoils system system where phony carbon credit schemes and sweetheart government grants enrich themselves and their connected friends. This group also includes many of the climate change scientists who are granted lavish funding and rock star status for participating within the established political template. Yes, some of these scientists are so pigeon-holed into narrowly defined studies that they lack perspective but they should know better. Again, most of these scientists, living within an university/academic social bubble are also immersed in left wing philosophy, but that is not the primary driver of their participation.

In terms of culpability and contempt, the Dupes are at least motivated by mostly honest, albeit misguided emotions.

The Marxists are being what they are, and they are behaving as Marxists and totalitarians as they always have. After all, they never promised the truth. When they have achieved their ends they will be free to shed their environmental facade.

The final group, the Opportunists, should be revealed as most objectionable. These people know the true destructive political drivers behind this movement and know the terrible human cost. In light of this knowledge they choose personal enrichment and hope for the best.

Yeah so in which category do you place me?

I am not interested in politics, I am not a religous person, I like science and spend a lot of time researching it.

I come up with answers showing the scientific reason that global warming is not happening, like CO2 warming effect is logarithmic (you want to see the chart again)

Sea level is rising at 1.7mm per year 6inches per century (do you want to see NOAA chart again)

The oceans are not going acidic, (our oceans contain 93% of all the worlds CO2, soil 4%, an increase inatmospheric CO2 is harldly likel to change anything)

So what category do you put me in???

I agree with global climate change. After all, it's been happening for over a few billion years

Your beliefs are not science. They are simply your beliefs which have nothing to do with science. Science isn't a set of facts to believe in unless of course you are an alarmist.

Alas, alarmists fall into far fewer categories. You have the sheep and you have the lemmings. The sheep believe whatever they are told to believe and the lemmings simply march to save the planet.

Yeah just call em 'truthers'.

Occam's razor ('law of parsimony'): They are wrong - and they are wrong because they deny science.