a blog which is pretty self explanatory.
Being irritated by laptop denialists [i.e. those with so much time to cut & paste misinformation on every comment page] it seemed logical to track down what was really said and by whom. If you find a quote claiming it is all grand conspiracy or a lie, junk science, new religion just include the quote and who said it in the comments on this page.
A word about the term ‘Denier’, no one denies the climate has not constantly changed and although a frequent meme of ‘deniers’ the concern is not that climate changes over time [many thousands of years] but the relatively stable climate that human life has flourished in over the last 6,000 years is changing rapidly and it is caused by human burning of fossil fuels.
Who determines who is listed?
The list is determined by names or quotes mentioned by commentators on the internet or in the media- an inclusion does not determine if the person denies MMCC- some scientists are misrepresented. It tends to be a democratic process- if deniers mention a person, quote them, or rely on their authority then they may get included.
Defining denial
The difference between climate [AGW] sceptics and deniers is the former do not deny basic physics, scientific observations and accepted theory but may take issue with method or conclusions. In this respect all scientists are sceptics. The denier is entirely different.
1/ deniers will happily hold contradictory views as long as they oppose AGW science.
2/ deniers lend weight to an argument based on x paper is right and u v w y z papers are therefore wrong. If a single paper is to turn around accepted theory then such a new theory needs extraordinary evidence.
3/deniers are incredibly unsceptical of any argument against AGW
4/deniers want to be taken seriously and have a grown up debate but quickly descend to name calling, attacks and out right lying and then accuse others of being unreasonable. Being grown-up means accepting the overwhelming evidence when it is presented. It is about being mature and not changing the subject, or cherry picking data or using the internet as place to seed doubt.
5/deniers confuse science and politics. If you think governments are looking to tax and control you [join the club!] fine. But to believe that their is a global conspiracy by science either present some actual facts or accept you are also denying reality.
Deliberate attempts to seed doubt and to ignore facts and accepted explanations [such as the no warming since meme] is the definition of denier.
All links and bios have been checked for accuracy, however if any one has been misrepresented do comment and corrections will be prompt.
the Climate Denier List 
November 23, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Joseph E Postma
http://climateofsophistry.com/
A whole heap of wrongs…
December 15, 2012 at 3:52 am
You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to try and discredit these people. How about you actually debate the issues rather than just simply throwing mud. One word for you…….and please look it up or just think about it until you understand. “Hypocrite” I officially lay down a challenge for you folks who don’t care to actually look into the details and simply attack with misinformation…… I challenge you all to try and disprove what your list of “deniers” are actually proving. Good luck!!!!
PS (similar to the folks who made this site, I have nothing to back this up but I’ll say it anyways) The creators of this list have no credentials what so ever. The concencus from official science watchdogs has confirmed that this site was produced by a grade 3 child who lives somewhere in the Southern United States. Anybody can throw mud!!…. it’s quite simple!
January 8, 2013 at 6:45 pm
I plead you read the book : “Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics & Deniers; A Geoscientist looks at the Science of Climate Change”
An objective account of the science of climate, all based entirely on peer-reviewed studies.
January 17, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Can you add a search feature to this blog ?
Ty
[fixed- thanks- ed]
February 26, 2013 at 7:35 am
What a pathetic cowardly nonentity to hide namelessly behind a blog and direct unscientific bile at individuals.
Who are you cowardly blogger and what are your qualifications?
September 15, 2013 at 1:27 pm
RKS – what is your name, and what are your qualifications?
July 7, 2013 at 8:58 am
Test submission
September 13, 2013 at 4:27 pm
I looked up the first 6 papers (of 24) to see if any had a conflict of interest.
G. V. Chilingar wrote 3 papers, he is a petroleum engineer who is directly employed by Big Oil. The largest Iranian oil field? Yeah, it’s named after him. He’s also won multiple awards from the Saudis and other oil rich nations
Baliunas, Sallie. yes a denier but only because she argues her field of study is responsible for warming not C02. Agrees climate warming is occurring.
Balling, Robert. C This guy shakes everyone down. Over $650,000 from:
Nuclear power industry $250,000 over 20 years
Coal Industry $40,000
Exxon $150,000
The Greening Earth Society (a now defunct climate denier front group funded by coal industry) an award of exactly $89,212 in both 1998 and in 2000
American Petroleum Institute $38,000
where did I get this info from ? His own online CV at Arizona State U
K.K.Aggarwal an IT expert, so ok…. and Rameshwar Bali, Ph.D in Geology close but neither are exactly climate scientist, but I’ll take it.
So 1 paper out of 6 has no obvious bias at that rate the 24 papers becomes 4, very sad.
September 13, 2013 at 4:31 pm
Sorry forgot to link to the James Powell meta study where 13,950 papers agree on climate change and 24 disagree.
http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html
and specifically
http://www.jamespowell.org/Rejections/index.html
December 4, 2013 at 12:06 am
thanks for this list – a bit shorter than DESMOGBLOG’s list (ca. 250) but it offers a convenient resource for anyone looking for research contrary to DAGW (Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming) / CCC (Catastrophic Climate Change) catechism
excluding astrophysicists, as somehow outside the field, calls into question Dr. Hansen’s work at NASA/GISS – perhaps, in that case, Hansen’s former colleague, Dr. Gordon Fulks, should be added – Fulks writes and speaks publicly around the Pacific Northwest http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/07/the_dishonesty_of_climate_chan.html
from the above-cited July 2013 Oregonian article: “President Barack Obama’s “climate change” speech last month reiterated his assertions that the earth is warming dangerously, that human emissions of carbon dioxide are clearly responsible and that virtually all scientists agree with him. As 115 scientists from around the world told him several years ago: “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true.” One was Nobel laureate in physics Ivar Giaever, a Democrat. The president now calls those who dispute his hysteria the “Flat Earth Society.”
Fulks has also joined 11 others in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court recently asking it to overturn the EPA’s “endangerment finding” on carbon dioxide. This is the first time that the high court has been asked to consider purely scientific arguments rather than, for instance, the EPA’s failure to follow the recommendations of its inspector general. http://junkscience.com/2013/07/20/physicist-gordon-fulks-11-others-file-amicus-brief-proving-epas-three-lines-of-climate-evidence-are-fatally-flawed/
I also noticed on the meager (alleged 3%) list page – https://denierlist.wordpress.com/326-2/ – editors note about Curry and Pielke and why they’re not listed – curious, as Dr. Curry, in her writing, has cited Dr. Lindzen as perhaps the most level head in the field
final note about this from the ‘about’ statement above: “…deniers want to be taken seriously and have a grown up debate but quickly descend to name calling…” – I join this polemic from time to time on a number of blogs and I find this to be more often the behavior of DAGW/CCC alarmists – maybe visiting the wrong places… too many left/lib/prog blogs, where any and all contrarians are summarily shouted down – I hold the opinion that clean air, water, soil are the essential to environmental balance, health, welfare, etc; but, I also feel that DAGW/CCC hysteria damages that cause – why, it’s a credibility issue and too much shallow zealotry with which it’s broadly promoted – as for gratuitous ad hominem invective, the Oregonian article cited above is typical
ED note
Fulks has been added to the list He appears to have no connection to Dr Hansen. With referance to your last paragraph Fulks appears define denial using language such as hoax, religion, believers, hysteria and calling scientists of the so-called climategate email theft- lying cheats.
March 23, 2014 at 11:57 pm
It has come to my attention that one of the more persistent climate deniers in Canadian media commentary, styling himself variously as “GlynnMhor of Skywall” or “GlynnMhor, is in fact Mr. Glenn Hawley, resident of Calgary, and currently, President of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada (as of 2013). While Mr. Hawley is strictly speaking an amateur astronomer and does not publish peer-reviewed science, his opinions will be familiar to many readers of commentary at the Globe and Mail, CBC and the Guardian relating to climate change issues.
Hawley regularly refers to the leading global surface temperature data sets, compiled by NASA/GIS, the Hadley Climate Research Unit (UK) and NOAA. Consistently with many who seek to deny the implications of Anthropogenic Global Warming, he cherry-picks isolated intervals from the timeframes of these data, to deceptively frame “cooling” or “stagnant” trend-lines. Such false trends are easily depicted, especially when goalposting the beginning at an exceptionally hot period in the records, such as the record-breaking El Nino of 1997-98. He seems convinced that there are as-yet unknown factors which drive cyclical trends in the Earth’s climate, accounting for variations in the slope of the global surface temperature trends in the commonly-referenced data. These “unknown unknowns” in his view, must necessarily account for the apparent shifts in the surface temperature record, as he cites a “warming trend” from 1910 – 1940, a “cooling trend” from 1940 – 1970, another “warming trend” during 1970 – 2000, and since then a “stagnation” which must obviously imply (in his view) that a cooling trend will soon be upon us (note that the excellent work of Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf, 2011, accurately weighs and attributes the several factors which do account for these variations in the record). Often, Hawley will suggest the well-worn (and discredited) thesis of Solar coronal discharges affecting terrestrial exposure to Galactic Cosmic Rays, which supposedly create charged-particle “seeds” which develop water droplets aggregated into more or less cloud cover. This theory has been promoted by Hendrik Svensmark, and was popularized by the notorious climate “skeptic” film, The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Needless to say there is a problem with all that. None of Hawley’s assertions are supported by the science, least of all by the researchers who have compiled the data which he subjects to skewed interpretations and slope-fitting into his preferred narratives. The work of “Solar-driven” theorists like Svensmark is not supported by empirical evidence (J. Kirkby et al, in the CLOUD experiment at CERN, 2012 failed to find adequately sized ion clusters to create water droplet nucleation), and the International Astronomical Union has itself recently stated:
“There is not such a formal position endorsed by the IAU. Let alone any claim from IAU that suggests that global warming (defined as the heating trend observed on Earth during the last mid 20th century) can be explained by solar variability.
While it is clear that the Sun does have an impact on Earth’s climate and that changes (over the past few centuries) have been tentatively ascribed to solar irradiance changes, there is a common consensus by the solar community that the recently observed warming trend cannot be related to changes on the Sun.”
(IAU information bulletin, July 2011, section 4.3, p.19)
It seems Glenn Hawley has an anti-science agenda, unusually perhaps, for someone who presides over an ostensibly Science-based organization, yet more outrageously, as the President of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, which also publishes a prestigious and well-regarded scientific journal. At heart an amateur astronomer, Mr. Hawley is simply a man who sees what he wants to see. However, being in such a position of authority and influence, it must be of great concern to any scientifically-literate member of the RASC, that he spends so much time actively crusading against both climate science, and responsible policy in response to its implications. With no relevant academic credentials, the prospect of publication in a peer-reviewed journal about climate science must remain frustratingly elusive for him. But should the President of the RASC have any business in distorting the public perception of climate science, alternative energy, and responsible environmental policy, as an Internet Troll?
June 5, 2014 at 11:41 pm
To who ever runs this laughable site.
You forgot me!
I have been skeptical of the CAGW scam for years, and have written on many blogs to say so.
You are oviously as talentless as John Cook when it come to internet research.
June 6, 2014 at 6:54 pm
Tom O Mason, if you are so prolific and proud of your skeptical stand, you might have told us who you are…
Name, Institution, link to peer reviewed published paper, or your personal blog, etc.
If you are Tom Mason of Northwestern Engineering you have an impressive Ph. D in materials science from MIT, and so can run rings around me, but that doesn’t make you a climate expert.
September 4, 2014 at 10:17 am
Actually tomOmason is not the only notable omission here. The list could run into many hundreds, and that just counts the brave souls who have blogs!
If we count people who comment on those blogs, there should be thousands of entries!
March 18, 2015 at 4:06 pm
Funny, while maintaining a facade of providing a valuable source of public knowledge about “dangerous people” – no one appears to be critical at all of the (clever?) conflation of “holocaust denier” with “climate denier” – that is part and parcel of the name of this list. I think in the future, when the AGW (anthropogenic global weirding) cult is exposed, such sites will become part of a museum of oddities, like the racist cartoons showing Japanese pilots morphing into monkeys – in the WWII era.
March 18, 2015 at 4:52 pm
Funnily enough, the term deniers has been extant for many years and for many subjects: e.g. HIV Denier.
So the victim card you are trying to play is pathetic.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/hiv-denial-and-just-asking-questions/
March 30, 2015 at 3:33 pm
Glad to see someone naming names so the children will know who was responsible for the destruction of the planet as we know it.
November 14, 2018 at 6:20 pm
What is an AGW cultist?
1/ Cultists will happily hold contradictory views as long as they support AGW ‘science’.
2/ Cultists lend weight to an argument based on x paper is right and u v w y z papers are therefore wrong. If a single paper is to turn around accepted theory then such a new theory needs extraordinary evidence.
3/ Cultists are incredibly unsceptical of any argument for AGW
4/ Cultists want to be taken seriously and have a grown up debate but quickly descend to name calling, attacks and out right lying and then accuse others of being unreasonable. Being grown-up means accepting the overwhelming evidence when it is presented. It is about being mature and not changing the subject, or cherry picking data or using the internet as place to seed doubt.
5/ Cultists confuse science and politics. Believing there is a global conspiracy by big business to destroy climate, requiring massive political power to control how people live, work, and spend their own money, either present some actual facts or accept you are also denying reality.
Deliberate attempts to seed doubt and to ignore facts and accepted explanations is the definition of cultist.
November 14, 2018 at 6:34 pm
“Deliberate attempts to seed doubt and to ignore facts and accepted explanations is the definition of cultist.”
The very definition of a denier, which is what you and the people on the list do.
March 2, 2023 at 8:59 pm
Gosh Paul, at this rate you’ll be getting a medal President Xi for services to the CCP! Well done.
March 3, 2023 at 7:05 pm
Gosh, that must be one of the lamest excuses from a denier – see point 5.