10 Questions For Climate Change Deniers

Lord Monckton, leading climate change denier

Lord Monckton, leading climate change denier

Debating climate change deniers is generally about as useful as debating young-Earth creationists. They have no evidence on their side, but that doesn’t seem to worry them in the slightest. Given that these people managed to go through school without picking up even a modicum of scientific theory, it seems pointless trying to lecture them.

So instead, this is an invitation to climate change deniers to make their case right here. Here are 10 questions for deniers to answer in the comments section of this blog. Feel free to answer any or all of the questions below. The best answers (assuming there are any) will be published in a follow-up post, fully credited and fairly presented.

Please note that comments should not be added in crayon.

  1. Picture question: Look at the picture of Lord Monckton above. Would you buy a used car from this man?
  2. If there is a “scientific debate” why do only 24 out of 13,950 peer-reviewed papers (that’s 0.17%) dispute man-made climate change?
  3. If there is “science on both sides”, why do billionaires secretly have to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into denialist propaganda?
  4. Why are there no climate scientists as spokesmen for the denial side? (Name one to prove this assertion wrong).
  5. Why does leading “denialist” spokesman Lord Monckton have to tell lies if the facts are on his side?
  6. Why do you not believe climate scientists about present warming, but believe them when they say the climate changed in the past?
  7. Who knows most about the climate? a) Climate scientists, b) Economists, c) Oil companies, d) Michele Bachmann?
  8. The greenhouse effect, caused by carbon dioxide, is explained by basic Physics and can be easily demonstrated in the lab. Do you still deny this even after watching the short, simple video? a) No, I admit defeat b) What’s a lab?
  9. Carbon dioxide has increased by 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Is this a) A lot, b) Not a lot?
  10. Look at yourself in a mirror. Does that look like a person who can grasp scientific concepts? a) Yes, b) No, c) I can’t read – I’ve no idea how I got this far through the post.

30 thoughts on “10 Questions For Climate Change Deniers

  1. Listen, climate change ain’t in the constitution. Not in the constitution, not happening. Get it? The constitution of the USA defines reality, but GOD defines the constitution. Do you think GOD would allow his earthly creations to effect his grand plan by the same gas emitted when we all breathe? No. Besides, They’re CARS idiot..I can’t even get the heater to work INSIDE during winter for like 10 minutes, so how can it heat the world? Not very smart logicity bud. If I’m wrong, I will drink a cup of z grade coffee brewed through the gusset of Michelle Bachmann’s hosiery.

    Sorry …I tried to duplicate a right wing argument but even the above requires too much thought to be applicable.

  2. I’m not sure it’s particularly useful to bring Monkton’s looks into this. He is clearly suffering from either hyperthyroidism or thyroid eye disease. There is so much valuable data to counter his nonesense I think we should refrain from ad-homenim

    • Consider that his medical condition may also be responsible for his mental condition. He is a strange duck in many realms. I think it’s mostly delusions of grandeur, with all that fake Lord stuff. He wants to seem important so he’s grabbed climate change as a contrarian topic that he can yell about, regardless of true substance.

      • Given that his medical condition has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his thought processes it is, as I said, irrelevant and distracting.

        I agree with you about his attention-whoring however and he certainly provides much to be critical about.

  3. Re#4: Fred Singer is an “atmospheric physicist.” I think that counts as a climate scientist. He’s also a contrarian twat and a dingus who denies lots of things besides anthropogenic climate change (such as the health risks of second-hand smoke). The good news is he is approaching 90 years old, so his expertise — such as it is– is less and less sought out by reputable news outlets, since they have to edit out his non sequitir exclamations like “Damn kids, get off of my lawn.”

    • So are
      Tim Ball, Gordon Fulks, George Taylor, John Christy, David Deming, Ivar Giaever, The Idsos, David Legates, Bob Carter, Willie Soon, Ole Humlum, Chris de Freitas, Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Steve Koonin, Denis Rancourt, William Happer, Bill Kininmonth, Don Easterbrook, Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer, Murry Salby, Nir Shaviv, Fred Singer, Nils-Axel Morner, Richard Lindzen and another 31,000 or so.

  4. Pingback: Ten Questions For Climate Change Deniers | MoronWatch | kakoluri.com

  5. I think question #6 sums up denier cherry-picking tactics more than anything. They don’t challenge the method of science UNTIL their own agenda is challenged, then suddenly scientists are either clueless or part of a conspiracy extending way back to whenever they see fit.

    CO2 was known to be a heat-trapping gas in the 1800s (per Fourier, Tyndall & Arrhenius). Were those guys colluding with James Hansen via unknown time machines? Either you accept that science mostly gets it right or you don’t. You can’t frame them as bumblers who simultaneously manage to pull of elaborate secret conspiracies in plain sight. It makes no sense.

    AGW denial is blatantly political and nobody but the deniers is being fooled into thinking otherwise. Remember when they were telling us that a CFC phase-out would ruin the economy? Same mindset, different decade, equally wrong.

  6. I notice nobody is actually answering the poster’s 10 questions, just changing the subject.

    Sleazy GOP debate tactics generally involve: A) changing the subject, B) omitting critical context, C) cherry-picking minutia, D) baldfaced lies, or all of the above.

  7. Pingback: Just For The Climate Change Pom Pom Cheerleaders - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 14 - City-Data Forum

  8. Pingback: O que os gays tem a ensinar aos ativistas do clima | Canal Ibase

  9. Your 10 questions are a little too simplistic as the AGW debate has evolved into something more nuanced. The Deniers have become “Lukewarmers” meaning they concede GW or AGW, but they argue the warming will be at a slow pace; that it is far too costly for society to get off of fossil fuels; that, hey, warming is good; that, hey, people – always clever – will adapt, move North move inland etc.. So the Deniers concede some points. BTW scientist anti-AGW Fred Singer does give lectures, one is at YouTube recorded at Google Europe.

    • Re Heubel’s comment is disingenuous. I have known many “lukewarmers” since 2007 and I have evidence to show for it. Does that make their argument any stronger? Or are lukewarmers to be classified as “deniers” anyway?

      Until we agree on what we are talking about, the questions will remain the only moronic thing around.

Leave a Reply