The Associated Press drops the ugly climate term "denier" in their AP stylebook

I am not a “climate change doubter”. Indeed, I am the very opposite : I know for sure that climate changed, changes, and will change. All this, without any significant global human influence (as opposed to local human influence, that can be tremendous : for sure, when Man cuts forests, drains swamps, build dams and cities, this indeed changes climate)
CAGW zealots ARE “climate change doubter”, as they doubt that nature alone explains the whole thing.
Likewise, I DO NOT “reject” mainstream climate science. Some facts I accept (that more GHG means somewhat less outradiation, for instance) ; other parts, I reject because I KNOW that they are neither mainstream nor science. It is not “mainstream” to forge new statistical methods relevant only to climate analysis, it is not “science” to model a chaotic process such climate within a perturbation theory framework (especially using so scarce data ans so many parameters), to change data, etc.
I deny the existence of a thing called “mainstream-climate-science”. I see it as pseudoscience, not mainstream, and relative to politics, not climate.
So how AP should call proponents of both sides, without “name calling” ?
On one side , those that believe ALL of the following
1) unusual global warming happens
2) because of man’s GHG
3) it is catastrophic
4) to cope with it, we must cap humans’ GHG emissions at some very low level, lower than the level of, say, 1960 (as opposed to : simply deal with whatever happens)
On the other side, those disbelieve any one of those.
I would say that we disagree upon “climate politics” (NOT “mainstream climate science”)
Some “accept”, “promote”, “support” or “believe in” it. Others, like me, “reject” or “disbelieve” it

Doubters is rubbish. Science by its very nature is sceptical, otherwise it does not advance.
So it shows AP is still running a propaganda war, but they are wavering in their war.

I also applaud the banishment of the term “denier” . But I am a skeptic.

non-scientists who reject mainstream climate science have usurped the phrase skeptic. They say they aren’t skeptics because “proper skepticism promotes scientific inquiry, critical investigation and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims

Then they turn right around and tar us with the anti-science brush.

The Associated Press prefers climate change doubter or someone who rejects mainstream science

Right off the bat, they associate “doubter” with someone who rejects science. That is just as bad, and just as loaded a characterization. If “doubter” is going to be carried forward with this pejorative implication, we will have to push back on this one, as well.
I an a skeptic. I am also an analytical chemist with a specialization in applied spectroscopy, it would be a personal insult to characterize me as rejecting science, mainstream or otherwise.
There is one thing that makes this not quite so bad. Back in college, the journalism majors could not even read the titles of our textbooks. One day, I had my spectroscopy text, “Instrumental Methods of Analysis” with me, and a journo major inquired “How do you like your music course?”.

CO2 Climatology Doubter- sounds a much more apt descriptor. Doubter that its all CO2 and similar radiative absorbers decree the entire climate systems. Original term assumes government and green NGO is mainstream probably not in the larger climate science community- only in the louder parts of it.

I applaud the removal of the term “denier”, primarily for its similarity to the term “Holocaust Denier”. But there is nothing wrong with being called a skeptic; in fact, everyone should be a skeptic – especially in the face of extraordinary claims and when confronted with draconian political measures whose ostensible justification is the mitigation of some tbd future disaster.
However, one must be precise about what is being disputed by the skeptics, and why.
The skeptic’s view is by no means monolithic, but I believe the following summarises it fairly well:
– unconvinced that current and projected levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are threatening or even detrimental to the climate on earth, or that human-caused climate change may even be quantified separately from natural effects.
– unconvinced that the mild warming observed over the past half-century is anomalous for the Holocene and/or that it represents a dangerous trend.
– unconvinced that CO2 is a “pollutant”.
– unconvinced that measures proposed by the IPCC and multiple “mainstream” organisations (a concerted reduction in collective human CO2 emissions) will have a detectable effect on climate.
Thus skeptics question key assumptions made by mainstream / establishment climate science, based primarily on the lack of these assumptions having been validated or verified. They would therefore be most accurately described as “Global Warming Skeptics” with the term “Global Warming” implicitly meaning “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” (as opposed to merely the observed 20th Century Warming, which may have been caused in part by an increase in CO2).

Anthony … while I agree that elimination of “deniers” from the AP play book is a positive step, I also agree with the posters above who feel “doubters” to be equally wrong and inaccurate. The people who “doubt” climate change exists are few. And the difference between deny and doubt is small.
I do not believe you/we should allow the AP or any other to attempt to dictate how our position is described. We are SKEPTICS … we are not “doubters” about climate change – in fact almost all of us believe climate change is real and natural.
Rather we are “skeptical” of the claims made, and science behind, the proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
My vote is praise the effort – but criticize the performance … the result. Adopt the AP style book position of eliminating “denier” … but reject their label of “doubter” as little better than the term ‘denier” in describing the real beliefs of the vast majority of the skeptic community.
I respectfully suggest and encourage you/we adopt the term climate change “skeptic” and “proponent” as the WUWT style book terms. As a community we should lead the discussion on this topic, onm the label other apply in describing our position and beliefs … and not allow others to define and “label” us with their terms.
This is a big issue – AP should have reached out to the “skeptic” community in some fashion – even if privately to a few prominent members – to gather input and advice, before making this decision.
To be clear I commend Seth Borenstein, who I rarely agree with, and the AP for the effort, but offer constructive criticism for the decision on the label they chose, which is only marginal better. It is still highly inaccurate as to reflecting the actual beliefs of the skeptic community. .

Anthony. Let me add my voice to the dissent. I have NO doubt that climate changes. As such the term climate change doubter is as much a lie as denier. If you want a term to describe people who find the methods of the few objectionable, I suggest Free Thinker. Free thought is becoming a casualty in this war. Don’t let the other side dictate what you are to think or how you can express what you think. I don’t. That is why I embrace the term denier. When someone calls me one, it is easy to show that they are wrong. If they continue, it becomes increasingly clear to others observing the debate that they are lying.