Nature — and that problem of defining homo-sapiens-denier. Is it English or Newspeak? « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

All they need is the paper with the evidence showing that the 1.2°C direct warming is amplified to 3 or 4 degrees as projected by the models.  Key leaders in the denial movement have been asking for this data for years. Unfortunately the IPCC assessment reports do not contain any direct observations of the amplification, either by water vapor (the key positive feedback⁴) or the totality of feedbacks. The IPCC only quotes results from climate simulations.

Q.&A.: The Underside of 'Green' Transactions - NYTimes.com

development experts say there is a dark side to some ostensibly “green” market initiatives: the appropriation of resources for biofuels production, carbon offsets, ecotourism and so on can have devastating consequences for local people.

In effect, their ecosystems can be “asset-stripped,” forcing locals from their homes and worsening poverty, according to 17 case studies presented in a special issue of the Journal of Peasant Studies.

Flashback: They had to burn the village to save it from global warming | Watts Up With That?

And yet people are being burned out of their homes in Africa to plant trees for carbon credits. It is madness.

Lord Leach of Fairford weighs in on Nature’s ‘denier’ gaffe | Watts Up With That?

What does a “denier” deny? Certainly not Climate Change: nor global warming since records began in the late 19th century: nor the likelihood of human influence on temperatures. What, then?

A “denier” denies certainty on a complex and still young scientific subject. A “denier” questions assumptions about the near irrelevance of solar, oceanic and other non-anthropogenic influences on temperature. A “denier” prefers evidence to model projections. A “denier” tests alarming predictions against actual observations. In short, a “denier” exhibits the symptoms of a genuine seeker after scientific truth.