Skeptics, Debunkers and Deniers

What is characterized as “the climate change debate” has too often disintegrated into an argument over whether the world's climate is, indeed, changing, and too seldom featured an informed discussion over what the world's great powers should be doing about it.

This is a huge credit to those interest groups that have attacked the science behind climate change. Fashioning themselves “scientific skeptics,” these well-funded advocates have struck a righteous pose as debunkers - as guardians against the environmental Chicken Littles who have noticed that the sky, if not falling, is moving around in an unsettling way.

They are not using science; they're using a toxic concoction of public relations stunts.

These are not debunkers, testing outrageous claims with scientific rigor. They are deniers, shouting against a truth that they find economically unpalatable. They are not using science; they're using a toxic concoction of public relations stunts of which any good PR professional should be ashamed.

But don't take our word for it. Check out the best sites.

Here's a list of choices, beginning with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - unquestionably the most reputable selection of real climate scientists in the world. The first group lays out the case for caution. The second group would throw caution to the warming wind. Read with interest and always consider motive.

Ask yourself two questions:

  1. Why would 2,000 of the world's top academics and meteorologists cook up a climate conspiracy? (And how do they make all those hurricanes?)
  2. What have oil companies got to gain from denying there's a problem?

And if you have difficulty making the link between the deniers and the oil companies, see

Three sites we believe:

  1. IPCC (UN)
    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by
    WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. It is open to all Members of the UN and of WMO.”
  2. The World Meteorological Organization (UN)
    “The UN system's authoritative voice on the state and behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere, its interaction with the oceans, the climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources.”
  3. BBC News: In depth - Global warning?

A den of deniers:

  1. Global
  2. Sovereignty International
  3. Frontiers of Freedom
  4. The George C. Marshall Institute


We agree that the comment was over the top and removed it some time ago. Thanks.

You’ve linked to the wrong sourcewatch–you want, not  The latter is a tool to make sure your web server content doesn’t get defaced.

I was enthusiastic when I started reading through this web site; but as I read on I became less and less so…

You wrote, “[w]hat is characterized as “the climate change debate” has too often disintegrated into an argument over whether the world’s climate is, indeed, changing, and too seldom featured an informed discussion over what the world’s great powers should be doing about it.”

Of course, that’s the whole point: we’d better be sure whether it’s getting hotter or colder or staying the same or it’s our fault or sun spots or whatever before we attempt doing something about it. Until these issues are settled, squabbling over other things is rather pointless.

This is my layman’s argument against Global Warming (not that I don’t have a good technical one, I’ll be glad to give you that too.): You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand this; and you already have all the information you need to see this right now:

If we were in a period of global warming, each day on the weather report when they say, “the high for this day was 87 and that was back in 1931.” You would consistently see recent years come up in these records. Well, wouldn’t you? Come on, admit it. You know you would; but you don’t. I dare you to pull up the local weather screen right now and check it out. Go ahead, you’re confident of your experts. Check out yesterday while you’re at it.

I’ll even provide you with a file full of highs and lows from all over the country or all over the world. If you think I’m lying you can go and get the data for yourself from the National Climate Data Center. The only way the data show global warming is if you mess with them before you plot them. I don’t mess with data. I provide links to 4 files with all the data you could possibly want to see over on Sarah Pullman’s page at this same site,

Just look at the data. Don’t be afraid of it. Maybe somebody on this blog will actually check to see that the numbers can be traced all the way back to the original source. I don’t hide behind pomp and bluster and incomprehensible equations or correction factors or anything else that you can’t get at in order to hold me accountable. That’s the difference between me and these experts you trust. Ask them for their data and see what response you get.

To Mr. Dudley J. Benton, Ph.D.

Are you the one who write the CREST500 ? Please let me know, i have one question about. Many thanks

I’m right there with you when it comes to rooting out conflicts of interest and bogus claims. Of course, this has nothing to do with the evaluation of actual measured climate data, as opposed to conjecture and speculative model forecasts. I insist on hard evidence, not a vote among the most popular scientists of the day. I’m interested in facts, not opinion.

While I’m disappointed that you limit yourself to questioning the motives rather than the science of the people who don’t agree with you, I’m quite encouraged by the fact that you haven’t deleted my comments from your blog!

“Weather” is what is happening outside the window yesterday, today, or next week. When weather scientists attempt to predict the weather next week, they are using entirely different methods from when climate scientists are attempting to analyze climate.

Weather people study clouds, rainfall, wind -data from last week.  Climate people study, for example, ice core samples two miles deep under the antartic ice shelf -things which will tell them what happened 100,000 years ago.

 My explaination would be more clear if I could remember the proper name for each of those specialities, because they are two completely different breeds of scientists studying completely different things using completely different tools for completely different purposes. 

Some “scientists” get their funding from the oil companies, but they only get the money if the oil companies like the results.  THESE are the “scientists” who dispute global warming, and their research methods are so inaccurate that they are not accepted into peer-reviewed journals.

 I notice you haven’t responded with any peer-reviewed research supporting your claim, why is that I wonder?

 It’s time to accept that climate change is happening, and move on to decide what to do about it.  If these oil barons don’t get off their high horse pretty soon, they might find an angry horde at their door with pitchforks.  Literally.  Don’t mess with somebody who has nothing to lose.

If you are suggesting that global warming is not occurring based on whether it’s hotter  today than 20 years ago, I think you should seek out other evidence. And I for one would be interested in your ‘technical’ reason why global warming doesn’t exist. What is your data, what research have you conducted, for what period of time, what was your method, who conducted it, etc. etc.

There are scientists who have spent years of their lives researching climate change and are much more qualified to give technical data than some yoyo on a blog. Numerous books exist which detail unbiased research and data collected on climate change. Everyone is entitled to their opionion, but I would look very critically at any scientist who claims that global warming is not occurring.

I came to this page because the main page says i can see the list of skeptics/debunkers/deniers here. Where is the list?

The link to (above) takes you to

Hey Jim, your link to goes to, which is very different! Please fix! This is an important organization!