[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you define a "skeptic" for me in the context of global warming?... Are there only skeptics, non skeptics and people who don'care? If there are others please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the conversation and how it's phrased. Most of the time it's someone who is skeptical of CO2 driven global warming. However, things are changing. 5 years ago Lomborg qualified as well as many other shills. Now they seem to be moving to "it's real but it's good for us" or "it's real but it won't harm us" or even "it's real but there's nothing we can do about it so don't worry". Those tend to be the shady skeptics that are actually denialists. There are definitely shills (who are bought for money), party liners and blind ideology, the good-old-boys-club and the ivory tower haters. There are a lot of people in the world and many many reasons to deny something that can harm a particular industry/organization or benefit one you don't have control of.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you define a "non skeptic" for me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it depends on the conversation.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider me a skeptic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you ask lots of questions and read so that is a good skeptic. However, something as simple as discussing whether or not a forecast is based off of old school statistics and gut feelings or climate models should not turn into an intensely heated conversation. Maybe I'm at fault, I'm not sure, but something certainly isn't right.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the term skeptic is perjorative?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it depends on how it's used. Denialist is definitely a pejorative. If I'm calling Bill Gray a skeptic I'm using it as a pejorative. If I'm calling James Annan or W. Connelly, who routinely keeps Hansen and the IPCC on their toes, a skeptic then I'm giving them a compliment.