As for Lovelock, he has said some wacky things of late which to me indicate he is not keeping up with the issue as much as he should if he wants to make such statements.

In fact he reminds me a little of Freman Dyson, though he had taken the opposite stance. Both are very intelligent, but both say things that aren’t supported by the science.

The long and short of it – we can control global warming – just – but (and this is a gigantic “but”) we in the industrialized West have to completely abandon all coal fueled plants within 10-years with the rest of the planet doing likewise by 2030.

If we don’t, he sides with Lovelock who today said we might as well enjoy ourselves because we don’t have a chance remaining of avoiding catastrophic global warming. That’s right – Lovelock has finally thrown in the towel.

Git yer ass in a muscle car and start laying down some serious rubber!

I did know that, but that info was burred somewhere deep and didn’t surface till you pointed it out.

Re: Monbiot

I actually ask that question (it is in my comment policy) to anyone who denies climate change if I foresee a long exchange of comments between us. Anyone who absolutely wont be convinced no matter what, or who’s standards for evidence are absurdly high (like being to explain every climate shift in great detail going back 4.5 billion years) is irrational and not worth your time

But it is worthwhile to answer that question in reverse as well. What would it take to for you to stop accepting the consensus view on climate change? For me (a non-expert) it is substantive debate within the scientific community. If that happens I’d say the science is no longer certain.

Eli’s comment in Open Mind is, of course, an adpation of Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen who could “believe six impossible things before breakfast” (which I expect you knew). I’m intrigued, however, by Eli’s halving of the number (is this an apperceptive comment on the limited mental capacity of deniers ?) and his addition of “mutually contradictory” which is something even the Red Queen never attempted. But then, maybe that’s because she had a really excellent memory that worked in both directions: maybe if you can remember the future, you’re less susceptiple to self-contradiction.

As to others being “willing to learn”, I assume you’ve seen the lastest piece in RealClimate, and here’s another viewpoint (in case you haven’t seen it yet) that is worth a read:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/03/08/the-unpersuadables/

Denialist may be more accurate, but for better or worse denier is the term that stuck. Climategate may have been an inaccurate description of what happened (swifthack seems more accurate to me), but it is not the term that stuck. For better or worse those are the terms we are stuck with, as those are the terms that people type into google.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

@ Chris

I sometimes as a similar question, but not for climate. I go for cancer. Suppose you go to the doctor and he says you have cancer. What do you do? I’d see a specialist. Suppose he also says you have cancer, what do you do? Maybe get a second opinion from another specialist. What happens after you have seen 100 specialist, and all but one has said you have cancer and need treatment? Do you get treatment? Or do you stick with the diagnosis of the specialist who says you don’t have cancer?

So why don’t you do the same for climate?

Some of the answers are truly amazing, usually listing the many times that medical science has made errors. While completely missing the point. The issue isn’t that a consensus eliminates uncertainty (nothing does), but rather that it increases certainty. Your certainty of the original diagnosis increases each time a specialist confirms it, but the uncertainty never quite goes away.

Another interesting question is to ask (and to think about yourself) is what would change their mind on climate change, and why. If nothing will change their mind, then surely they are not rational and not worth your time. If they demand unreasonable levels of certainty, then ask them if they feel the same way about other areas, and of not why. These questions go a long way in separating those worth talking to from those who are just wasting your time.

@ Eli

What you said over at Open Mind:

the hooty thing about denialists is that they believe three impossible and mutually contradictory things before breakfast.

is great, and something that I think needs to be emphasized. Science works towards an understanding of how the world works. It is consistent with itself, and where it isn’t it means we are missing part of the picture.

@ Grim

Your welcome. Typically I would have stopped letting Mr Viking post here, but I have allowed him to continue because he brings up issues that I think my readers can learn about. Usually my tolerance for such comments is lower. I spent the first few years blogging engaging such people and found that none of them ever did more than state and restate their points while not even bothering to respond to what I had written. Eventually after a particularly nasty series of comments I clamped down. Responding to these comments was wasting a huge amount of time, and yielding nothing but noise in my comments sections.

I am more than happy to help people understand the issue, or at least point them in the right direction (I am no expert), but they have to show that they are willing to learn.

Don’t worry the pics are coming soon, I took way to many pictures, and am now working through them. Hopefully they will be up by the weekend.

But here are some that I really like:

Thanks for keeping up the good work, and maintaining a more reasoned and reasonable response than I ever could. But then, goodtallviking is such a classical example of his species.

Oh, and welcome back, and where’s the pictures ?

The question I always want to ask deniers is: Are you willing to bet your progeny on the very long odds that >98% of scientists are wrong? If so, why? Show your work.

And, no, poopyhead is not an acceptable scientific term.