AGW Deniers, a taxonomy

On the Grauniad CiF comments section, the question was posed:

Here is a question for both sides. How do you term someone who accepts that the climate is changing, but who is not convinced that man is entirely responsible?

How long is a piece of string ?

(1) Sceptic. Informed, and asking for more info. Will read links provided to scientific literature and change stance according to the Evidence(TM).

(2) Innocent or naive. The individual has been unaware or uninformed of AGW for whatever reason and has not read the scientific papers, associated scientific literature and has say, stumbled on this article and BTL comments. May change their stance given enough scientific Evidence(TM).

(3) Misinformed. The individual may have stumbled upon several bits of science on websites that give conflicting views of the state of the science and assumes they (the sources) are right. May change their stance given enough scientific Evidence(TM).

(4) Gullible fodder. The individual has stumbled upon several websites that give conflicting views of the state of the science but predominantly the denier websites like GWPF and WUWT and assumes they are right. Unlikely to change their stance given scientific Evidence(TM).

(5) Denier. Has made up their mind and no Evidence(TM) will change it. This may be due to any or all of the following:
– Dunning Kruger
– Ideological orientation
– Willful ignorance
– Cognitive dissonance
– Mistakes science for policy
– Conspiracy theorists

(6) Shill. Paid to deny.

I had to think and exercise the brain cell to come up with this list. Input is welcome and this will be subject to updates.