My evolving glossary... revised 3/2/2018

I started this a few posts ago in an effort to keep track of the different shades of opinion in the climate change debate. Perhaps naively, I thought it would be fairly straightforward. How wrong can you be? Instead my terms have themselves become the subject of debate...

Here's the latest version (updated 3 February 2018). The latest changes are all additions, so I didn't think it was worth producing a whole new version. An older version is below in case it is interesting to see how it has changed.

• Alarmist: (i) proponent of a theory, e.g. that of AGW-driven climate change, who seeks irrationally or for unscientific motives (possibly dishonest ones) to deny, misrepresent or obfuscate the science in such a way as to exaggerate the consequences; (ii) charge levelled against some proponents of AGW theory by their opponents (deniers, lukewarmers, sceptics or trolls).
• Catastrophist: stronger form of alarmist (ii) (qv); charge levelled by some opponents of AGW against its supporters; one who believes in worst case AGW scenarios, and also that our response is already too little too late; historically, one who followed the now generally discredited theory that the earth's geological history is typified by sudden violent events (Cuvier, Velikovski et al).
• Consensualist? (not sure this is the best word): one like me who is honestly persuaded on the available scientific evidence that AGW is real and potentially catastrophic. 
• Contrarian (deprecated?): widely used term that can mean either AGW-denier or sceptic, but with an associated implication of deliberate dishonesty.
• Denier: (i) one who opposes a theory where the preponderance of evidence is convincing, and irrationally or for unscientific motives (possibly dishonest ones) attempts to deny, misrepresent or obfuscate the science. E.g. (in my view) some opponents of AGW-driven climate change theory. A denier typically asserts that until everything is known, nothing is really known, and we can therefore do nothing; (ii) charge levelled at some opponents (sceptics or lukewarmers) of AGW theory by its proponents (consensualists or alarmists). 
• Fatalist: one who accepts AGW but believes it is already too late to avert the worst effects, and that efforts should be directed to mitigation and adaptation.
• Lukewarmer: subset of both sceptic and denier (qv); one who accepts the climate is warming but believes the overall increase will remain low enough that we don't need to avert or mitigate. Some do not accept anthropogenic influences. Some do not base their view on the science.
• Sceptic: (i) one who is inclined not to believe anything without sufficiently persuasive evidence; (ii) one who for honest and genuinely scientific reasons doubts that a theory has yet accumulated sufficient evidence; for example the conclusion that AGW-driven climate change is real, or is likely to be damaging.
• Scepticism: necessary part of the scientific method, which depends on testable hypotheses, falsification and verifiability; a hypothesis is only proved when all attempts to falsify it have failed; any such attempts at falsification must be verifiable. It is desirable to be sceptical up to the point where the preponderance of evidence is convincing. Beyond that point scepticism is irrational. There is debate about whether some AGW-sceptics are actually AGW-deniers.
• Troll: in this context, similar to contrarian (qv); one who deliberately seeks to create dissent or disrupt online discussion.
• Warmist: similar to alarmist (ii) (qv).

Thanks to all who have contributed suggestions, criticism, feedback.