The FP Guide to Climate Skeptics

[nazgulnarsil]

I think if anyone on hacker news wants discussion on GW there are plenty of sources for it. don't need it on HN. I was fine with it when it was occasional but this is like the 4th story in the last two days to make it to the front page.

[gaius]

So flag it.

[rauljara]

I kept the original title, but the pedant in me can't help but point out that there are very few people who are skeptical that climate exists. There are many more who are skeptical that global warming is caused by humans, which is what the guide is about.

[DaniFong]

This is actually quite a good article, thank you. It does a very good job of separating out the varied concerns of climate skeptics from each other: from those with a specific issue within climate science from those who primarily have a political agenda.

[nice1]

It is not good at all - it asserts on the first page that evidence for global warming is piling up, which is just not true. It is more of the same politically motivated bullshit that the UN has been spreading.

[stralep]

Expansion in my head:

The Functional Programming Guide to Climate Skeptics :)

[azgolfer]

If you want skepticism go to Climate Audit or Watts Up With That, then use your brain to decide if their arguments have merit.

[cgranade]

I have. The decisions of the respective bloggers to, instead of relying on facts, rely on misleading half-truths, misquotes and outright fabrications makes it difficult for me to find any reason to associate either site with skepticism. Rather, I find that both Climate Audit and WUWT are perfect examples of a sort of knee-jerk denialism that I find to be such a perversion of the word "skepticism."

The parent article, on the other hand, lists several examples of honest skeptics as well as of dishonest denialists. I would encourage people to evaluate the arguments of those skeptics, and not the pseudo-skeptics at CA and WUWT.